[NTG-context] ConTeXt standalone - in what situations is it better?

2013-10-24 Thread Lars Huttar
Hello,
I was looking into simplefonts
(http://wiki.contextgarden.net/simplefonts) and noticed the clause

 if you’re running ConTeXt Standalone
 http://wiki.contextgarden.net/ConTeXt_Standalone (which is a better
 option)

Well I'm using TeXLive, but am happy to take good advice, so I looked at
http://wiki.contextgarden.net/ConTeXt_Standalone to see why it would be
a better option.
The basic reason I can see is that Standalone is updated more frequently.

So if you're using bleeding-edge features of ConTeXt (including recent
fixes to simplefonts?), I can see wanting to use Standalone and have
access to the latest features and fixes.

On the other hand, if you're working on a large production project that
has to be careful of stability, is there any advantage to Standalone
over TeXLive? Sure, you can keep a standalone version frozen in place,
but then that seems equivalent to staying with an existing version of
TeXLive.

The other issue for me with Standalone is that the only version listed
for Windows is W32TeX. When I go to the web page for that platform, I
don't see any information about what W32TeX is; just how to install it.
It sounds like it's specific to 32-bit systems, and mine is 64-bit. But
I suppose in that regard it's no different from TeXLive -- the
executables are 32-bit but they run fine on 64-bit systems.

Does anybody have advice for me on other reasons for switching from
TeXLive to ConTeXt Standalone, or reasons not to?

Thanks,
Lars

___
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
___


Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt standalone - in what situations is it better?

2013-10-24 Thread Mojca Miklavec
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Lars Huttar wrote:

 The other issue for me with Standalone is that the only version listed
 for Windows is W32TeX. When I go to the web page for that platform, I
 don't see any information about what W32TeX is; just how to install it.
 It sounds like it's specific to 32-bit systems, and mine is 64-bit. But
 I suppose in that regard it's no different from TeXLive -- the
 executables are 32-bit but they run fine on 64-bit systems.

http://w32tex.org/

It's another distribution created by a Japanese guru for compiling
binaries with Visual Studio. You don't need to install W32TeX
yourself, but those binaries are used in both TeX Live and ConTeXt
distribution, so you basically get the same binaries (only maybe
slightly newer version with ConTeXt distribution). And yes, the
binaries work fine on a 64-bit system. Since recently there are 64-bit
binaries available, but I didn't manage to fix the scripts yet to
fetch those binaries when applicable.

 Does anybody have advice for me on other reasons for switching from
 TeXLive to ConTeXt Standalone, or reasons not to?

If TeX Live works for you, there is no real need to switch, but if you
ever need a patch or some new functionality, it would be easier to use
the latest version.

Mojca
___
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
___


Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt standalone - in what situations is it better?

2013-10-24 Thread john Culleton
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:57:35 +0200
Mojca Miklavec mojca.miklavec.li...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Lars Huttar wrote:
 
  The other issue for me with Standalone is that the only version
  listed for Windows is W32TeX. When I go to the web page for that
  platform, I don't see any information about what W32TeX is; just
  how to install it. It sounds like it's specific to 32-bit systems,
  and mine is 64-bit. But I suppose in that regard it's no different
  from TeXLive -- the executables are 32-bit but they run fine on
  64-bit systems.
 
 http://w32tex.org/
 
 It's another distribution created by a Japanese guru for compiling
 binaries with Visual Studio. You don't need to install W32TeX
 yourself, but those binaries are used in both TeX Live and ConTeXt
 distribution, so you basically get the same binaries (only maybe
 slightly newer version with ConTeXt distribution). And yes, the
 binaries work fine on a 64-bit system. Since recently there are 64-bit
 binaries available, but I didn't manage to fix the scripts yet to
 fetch those binaries when applicable.
 
  Does anybody have advice for me on other reasons for switching from
  TeXLive to ConTeXt Standalone, or reasons not to?
 
 If TeX Live works for you, there is no real need to switch, but if you
 ever need a patch or some new functionality, it would be easier to use
 the latest version.
 
 Mojca
 

There is a problem with using Texlive and a problem with using
Standalone. In the simplefonts area in particular documentation and
examples may rely on changes that weren't in place when Texlive 2103
was put together. This is a rapidly developing area. 

The problem with Standalone is that the full range of fonts found with
Texlive is not available. Standalone has 258 otf fonts and TexLive
has 508 otf fonts. So I am opting for TeXLive, although I have both.

Another dfficulty is that many of the examples for simplefonts
are apparently developed on a Windows system and I use Linux. Font
names are different.
  


-- 
John Culleton
Wexford Press
Free list of books for self-publishers:
http://wexfordpress.net/shortlist.html
PDF e-book: Create Book Covers with Scribus
available at http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html
___
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
___


Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt standalone - in what situations is it better?

2013-10-24 Thread Aditya Mahajan

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Lars Huttar wrote:


Hello,
I was looking into simplefonts
(http://wiki.contextgarden.net/simplefonts) and noticed the clause


if you’re running ConTeXt Standalone
http://wiki.contextgarden.net/ConTeXt_Standalone (which is a better
option)


Well I'm using TeXLive, but am happy to take good advice, so I looked at
http://wiki.contextgarden.net/ConTeXt_Standalone to see why it would be
a better option.
The basic reason I can see is that Standalone is updated more frequently.


Three or four years ago, when ConTeXt was moving from MkII to MkIV, 
you had to run through hoops to get context working with TL. Since the 
last two years, ConTeXt works out of the box in TL.



So if you're using bleeding-edge features of ConTeXt (including recent
fixes to simplefonts?), I can see wanting to use Standalone and have
access to the latest features and fixes.

On the other hand, if you're working on a large production project that
has to be careful of stability, is there any advantage to Standalone
over TeXLive? Sure, you can keep a standalone version frozen in place,
but then that seems equivalent to staying with an existing version of
TeXLive.


No. In some sense, it is better to use the frozen version that is part of 
TL rather than an arbitrary beta version from standalone. Every once in a 
while, the beta version has bugs (those are usually fixed in a matter of 
hours). But it can be tricky to decide which version to freeze for a long 
term production environment.


On the other hand, the version of ConTeXt that ships with TL is tested 
more thoroughly. So, there is some guarantee that it will not include any 
serious bugs.


Aditya___
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
___

Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt standalone - in what situations is it better?

2013-10-24 Thread Aditya Mahajan

The problem with Standalone is that the full range of fonts found with
Texlive is not available. Standalone has 258 otf fonts and TexLive
has 508 otf fonts. So I am opting for TeXLive, although I have both.


I use standalone in parallel with texlive (which I need for latex). In the 
Arch PKGBUILD that I maintain, I use:


 # If texlive exists, use fonts from texlive
 if [ -d $_texlivefontdir ]
 then
   mkdir -p $srcdir/tex/texmf-fonts
   if [ -L $srcdir/tex/texmf-fonts/fonts ]
   then
 rm $srcdir/tex/texmf-fonts/fonts
   fi
   ln -s $_texlivefontdir $srcdir/tex/texmf-fonts/fonts
 fi

So, if TL is installed, the TL font directory is symlinked at an 
appropriate location and all the TL fonts are available with ConTeXt 
standalone as well.



Another dfficulty is that many of the examples for simplefonts
are apparently developed on a Windows system and I use Linux. Font
names are different.


I haven't had any trouble with using simplefonts in Linux (but then, I 
rarely consult the wiki for usage examples). Could you point to specific 
examples.


Aditya
___
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
___


Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt standalone - in what situations is it better?

2013-10-24 Thread Wolfgang Schuster

Am 24.10.2013 um 16:18 schrieb Aditya Mahajan adit...@umich.edu:

 Another dfficulty is that many of the examples for simplefonts
 are apparently developed on a Windows system and I use Linux. Font
 names are different.
 
 I haven't had any trouble with using simplefonts in Linux (but then, I rarely 
 consult the wiki for usage examples). Could you point to specific examples.

That’s interesting because I use in many of my examples fonts from the TeX Gyre 
Project
and also fonts from the DejaVu family which are available on Linux. Which 
example leads
to the thought simplefonts was written on a Windows system?

Wolfgang
___
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
___