On 4/14/07, Hans Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ulf Martin wrote:
> > I wonder how people (esp. at Pragma) currently deal with this.
> for projects where we use relatively new features (which evolve) we use
> frozen trees;
Confirm
One tree of 2002 ("still-crazy-after-all-these-years").
Another of 2004.
Switch to last pdftex/context sometimes second quarter of this year;
switch to luatex at the end of next year.
Why switch ?
Last versions. are better (speed and features);
pdf spec. change .> > with regards to commands and such ... context is just (supposed to be) > downward compatible; even kind of obsolete is still there; with regards > to different solutions to problems, we often provide control usign low > level mode indicators On average, my macros are not completly portable from one tree to another, but I'm sure that this depend from my poor coding tecnique for 95% . 5% is made by spaces and fonts . > > concerning xetex ... keep in mind that there xetex is the moving target > (changes/extensions in interface) and to some extend this was true for > pdftex as well, but there we could silently adapt > > Also remember that Knuth originally intended TeX to be an "eternal" > > formatting system (thus we have at least the option to expand all macros > > into plain TeX and keep that as the source file). > > > plain tex is just a format and unsuitable as expanded format > > well, i have some experimental code that dumps the expanded token list > into a file; nu fun ... a 50 page moderately complex doc becomes some 25 > meg -) pdf has some sort of compression . Do \pdfcompresslevel=0 \pdfobjcompresslevel=0 make some differences in your 50page document? > Sanjoy has set up an advanced test system ... so anything that you > contribute can go in there I will install on my machine. luigi _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
