Is the unbearable burden of history weighing upon the projective geometry? (Q2864494)

Let us quote the authors' words from the beginning: ``We do not try to give an outline of the history of the projective geometry,NEWLINEwe have no interest in its white places.'' Indeed, the reader may find the text rather incoherent, sometimes even lacking in continuous reasonings.NEWLINEOne example: The theorem \(\mathbf{A}_1\) is given together with its proof.NEWLINEThen the Duality Principle is mentioned and the dual theorem \(\mathbf{A}_2\)is stated. The evident fact that \(\mathbf{A}_2\) is the dual of \(\mathbf{A}_1\) isNEWLINEannounced just there explicitely. Then why a proof for \(\mathbf{A}_2\) is also presented? Some different references are quoted by the same signNEWLINE[?] and those which are written in French contain a surprisingly high number of orthografic mistakes.NEWLINENEWLINENEWLINENEWLINEThus there are a few loose ends, but it is hard to complain about a text that leaves you eager to know more about the subject. In thisNEWLINEsense I cannot praise the authors' achievement highly enough. In fewer then 20 pages they have packed an essential part of an course onNEWLINEthe projective geometry.NEWLINENEWLINEFor the entire collection see [Zbl 0989.00025].