On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Thomas A. Schmitz <thomas.schm...@uni-bonn.de> wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2009, at 8:15 AM, luigi scarso wrote: > >>> 1. In evince under linux, the file looked fine, no problems were apparent. >> what about xpdf and ghostscript? >> Can you also try with mupdf ? > > That wasn't the point, I was not trying to give a comparative table of > pdf-viewers. luatex was buggy, but some viewers displayed the pdf > nonetheless. Doesn't make sense to test a dozen viewers because next time > around, the subset which does or does not work may be totally different.
Not dozen, only 2~3 but code independent .My choices are 1) xpdf (same codebase of luatex) 2)acroread (the most important viewer for pdf ) 3) ghostscript (also used by context ) They are all used / important for TeX community and printing house. mupdf comes from ghostscript team , it's quick but young, it comes with some interesting cmdline tools . Until now I was not able to use it as viewer in everyday use, so I don't know if it's good or not for checking pdf made by luatex I believe that Taco knows mupdf better than me. -- luigi ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
