Arthur Reutenauer writes:
> Maybe it's time that we turn the question the other way round and ask
> you for reasons to *do* so.
Hi Arthur,
as far as I remember, Jonathan explained clearly at the very beginning
of the discussion why he is interested in an intermediate format.
> What, could
> Yes, typesetting applications need to know about included objects such as
> images (and fonts). But from there you conclude that there's a benefit in
> generating PDF directly. I don't see how this follows.
The key to understanding the “benefit in generating PDF directly” lies
in the adver
2009/1/4 Jonathan Fine :
> Martin Schröder wrote:
>> 2009/1/2 Jonathan Fine :
>>> Please could I be told, what are the main benefits of directly producing
>>> PDF?
>>
>> Reasoning about and manipulating included PDFs. This is much harder
>> with a two-pass engine like XeTeX + postprocessor; as an e
Jonathan Fine skribis:
> Well, it's not MY code, but I'm sure you're welcome to use it:
>http://scripts.sil.org/svn-public/xetex/TRUNK/
>http://scripts.sil.org/svn-public/xdvipdfmx/TRUNK/
>
> XeTeX is distributed under the X11 free software license.
xdvipdfmx is GPL, I believe.
_
Martin Schröder wrote:
2009/1/2 Jonathan Fine :
Please could I be told, what are the main benefits of directly producing
PDF?
Reasoning about and manipulating included PDFs. This is much harder
with a two-pass engine like XeTeX + postprocessor; as an example
compare the knowledge of XeTeX (the
Jonathan Fine skribis:
> But DVI lacks an essential feature of TeX, which is the TeX macro language.
> I count this as a benefit of DVI, not a deficiency. Standards restrict,
> and by restricting enable.
This may be a case of 'If you build it, they will come': present a set
of tools making XDV
Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
However, your statement seems to contradict your earlier statement
(snipped) that one can do
Source transformed by LuaTeX to DVI and hence PDF
and get the same result as
Source transformed directly to PDF by LuaTeX
I didn't write that you would get the same
> However, your statement seems to contradict your earlier statement
> (snipped) that one can do
> Source transformed by LuaTeX to DVI and hence PDF
> and get the same result as
> Source transformed directly to PDF by LuaTeX
I didn't write that you would get the same result. But in mos
Yannis Haralambous wrote:
1) I put tags in the DVI file which allow me to place marginal material
at (exactly) the same height, during post-processing. In DVI it is easy
to place a PUSH, make a skip, typeset the material and then POP back to
the previous position so that the rest of the page r
Le 2 janv. 09 à 21:49, Hans Hagen a écrit :i'm not sure if you refer to the same kind of positional info, but pdftex (and therefore luatex) hasn pdfsavepos cum suis in both pdf and dvi mode so you can store positions (lazy, i.e. write them to file in the backend) and then use them in a second pass
2009/1/2 Jonathan Fine :
> Please could I be told, what are the main benefits of directly producing
> PDF?
Reasoning about and manipulating included PDFs. This is much harder
with a two-pass engine like XeTeX + postprocessor; as an example
compare the knowledge of XeTeX (the program) and pdfTeX ab
Yannis Haralambous wrote:
Talking about DVI and PDF, I am the first one to be concerned about the
programmed extinction of DVI because I have many jobs based on DVI
post-processing (for example for marginal material, headers, and even
for parallel texts between two pages). The advantage with DV
Jonathan Fine wrote:
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
[discussion of plans snipped]
PDF is very strong in the print field. However, the web page is also an
important medium, and as I said in my response to Mojca, I'd like to be
pdf is also quite strong in the preview on the web field; it packages
al
Jonathan Fine wrote:
Please could I be told, what are the main benefits of directly producing
PDF?
Convenience since all is packages in one file; also, it's in the spirit
of good old tex to adapt to developments (like pdf). Nowhere is demanded
that dvi is to be the output (in a similar fashi
Talking about DVI and PDF, I am the first one to be concerned about the programmed extinction of DVI because I have many jobs based on DVI post-processing (for example for marginal material, headers, and even for parallel texts between two pages). The advantage with DVI is that you can very easily
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
[discussion of plans snipped]
PDF is very strong in the print field. However, the web page is also an
important medium, and as I said in my response to Mojca, I'd like to be
able to view and interact with typeset material on a more-or-less
ordinary web page.
I'd also
Martin Schröder wrote:
2009/1/1 Jonathan Fine :
What I want is for LuaTeX and XeTeX to have a shared 'extended dvi format'
which is suitable for print, for generating PDF and possibly other purposes.
Thus loosing the benefits of directly producing PDF. I don't see many
benefits here.
Please
Mojca Miklavec wrote:
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Jonathan Fine wrote:
What I want is for LuaTeX and XeTeX to have a shared 'extended dvi format'
which is suitable for print, for generating PDF and possibly other purposes.
Just curious: how do you print xdv (what's wrong with printing pdf
Hi all,
Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
As subject. xdv is the eXtended DVi format used by XeTeX.
Actually, it can. LuaTeX produces DVI, which is perfectly palatable
to XeTeX's xdv2pdf and xdvipdfmx. What features of xdv are you missing
in LuaTeX's output?
As Barry said in another message, To
Jonathan Fine wrote:
What I want is for LuaTeX and XeTeX to have a shared 'extended dvi
format' which is suitable for print, for generating PDF and possibly
other purposes.
And of course I'd like this format to be of at least satisfactory
technical quality.
Since luatex is mostly pdftex th
2009/1/1 Jonathan Fine :
> What I want is for LuaTeX and XeTeX to have a shared 'extended dvi format'
> which is suitable for print, for generating PDF and possibly other purposes.
Thus loosing the benefits of directly producing PDF. I don't see many
benefits here.
But of course patches implementi
David Kastrup writes:
> So I don't think that the DVI format does not make for a sensible
> starting point for embedding such information.
Read what I mean, not what I write.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
dev-luatex mailing lis
Jonathan Fine writes:
> Yannis Haralambous wrote:
>
>> the original DVI format already supports 4-byte character, what more
>> Unicode-savviness do you need? Of course one should decide whether
>> DVI should contain glyph indexes or Unicode codepoints.
>
> I'd like bidirectional information to be
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Jonathan Fine wrote:
>
> What I want is for LuaTeX and XeTeX to have a shared 'extended dvi format'
> which is suitable for print, for generating PDF and possibly other purposes.
Just curious: how do you print xdv (what's wrong with printing pdf?)
and what other pu
Yannis Haralambous wrote:
the original DVI format already supports 4-byte character, what more
Unicode-savviness do you need? Of course one should decide whether DVI
should contain glyph indexes or Unicode codepoints.
I'd like bidirectional information to be available.
Unless you mean by Uni
Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
[snip]
I'm looking for a what might be called a Unicode savvy Device Independent
binary format. And I'm looking for XeTeX and LuTeX to share code and
ideas, when possible.
Hence, what you're aiming at is for LuaTeX and XeTeX to produce some
common extended DVI for
Jonathan Fine skribis:
> I'm looking for a what might be called a Unicode savvy Device Independent
> binary format. And I'm looking for XeTeX and LuTeX to share code and
> ideas, when possible.
Glyph indexes plus a ToUnicode map. That's how Unicode-savviness is
done in a PDF: each glyph index
> Knuth and MacKay were the first to extent DVI, because it does not
> adequately support bidirectional typesetting.
Yes, and, as I already tried to communicate to you, this extended
format (I assume you mean DVI-IVD) seems to me like a dead end, because
at the time it was developed, over twent
the original DVI format already supports 4-byte character, what more Unicode-savviness do you need? Of course one should decide whether DVI should contain glyph indexes or Unicode codepoints.Unless you mean by Unicode-savviness that one should have both glyph indexes and Unicode codepoints (I think
Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
As subject. xdv is the eXtended DVi format used by XeTeX.
Actually, it can. LuaTeX produces DVI, which is perfectly palatable
to XeTeX's xdv2pdf and xdvipdfmx. What features of xdv are you missing
in LuaTeX's output?
Knuth and MacKay were the first to extent DVI,
> As subject. xdv is the eXtended DVi format used by XeTeX.
Actually, it can. LuaTeX produces DVI, which is perfectly palatable
to XeTeX's xdv2pdf and xdvipdfmx. What features of xdv are you missing
in LuaTeX's output?
Arthur
___
dev-luatex
Jonathan Fine wrote:
As subject. xdv is the eXtended DVi format used by XeTeX.
No, it cannot. Perhaps it should, but that needs a volunteer.
Best wishes,
Taco
___
dev-luatex mailing list
dev-luatex@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/dev-lua
As subject. xdv is the eXtended DVi format used by XeTeX.
I did a search on the mailing list archive and nothing came up.
http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=dev-luatex%40ntg.nl&q=xdv
Jonathan
___
dev-luatex mailing list
dev-luatex@ntg.nl
http:/
33 matches
Mail list logo
