2014-05-28 18:21 GMT+02:00 Joseph Wright <joseph.wri...@morningstar2.co.uk>:
> On 28/05/2014 16:14, Akira Kakuto wrote: > > Dear Vafa Karen-Pahlav > > > >> w.eps is taken from LaTeX graphics companion examples; > >> therefore I do not think there is anything wrong with the image itself. > >> > >> What is wrong? > > > > It is sufficient to change the header of w.eps > > from > > %!PS-Adobe-2.0 > > to > > %!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-2.0 > > in order to tell Ghostscript that w.eps is an > > eps file. > > > > Please try, then you will obtain an expected pdf. > > > > Thanks, > > Akira > > All true, but both latex + dvips and pdflatex produce the expected > output, as do latex + dvipdfmx or xelatex with the older driver set up. > dvips includes EPS directly, it does not need ghostscript, pdflatex is not able to insert EPS and if \write18 is allowed, epstopdf is called. Probably epstopdf invokes ghostscript in a different way than xdvipdfmx does. > -- > Joseph Wright > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- Zdeněk Wagner http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz
-------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex