[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] TeX output dimensions in ConTeXt

From: Carlos
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] TeX output dimensions in ConTeXt
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:17:19 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

Mosè Giordano <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi Carlos,
> 2015-09-27 22:08 GMT+02:00 Carlos <address@hidden>:
> This breaks things for people not using "context", doesn't it?
Documents compiled with texexec, should use texexec and/or mkiv
accordingly. Functions by/for texexec, are unaffected.

I have seen many more adopted changes in 'mark iv' than with
'texexec'. For example, As recent as a month ago, a table's requirements (as
specified by a power user) would not compile with either 2013 or 2014
'mark iv''s operations. This was later confirmed, by installing a 2015
version, which successfully completed it. 

As you know, It's useful to have different installations, if space is not a
constraining factor, so both outcomes can be checked against one
another. A reminder of this: is offered in Knuth's quote, as specified
by the default input file 'knuth' which is contained in ConTeXt. "The
real test begins as people with different viewpoints undertake their
own experiments". Nothing is more powerful than hands-on approaching
methods. It would be a long stretch, to stay up to date with every,
every update, every change, every modification. etc.

Unless the change, has such an effect on font handling, like mkiv deploys,
then it no longer is an option, but a necessity, to update. In the words
of known experts, the facilities involved in ConTeXt with the inclusion
of Lua, is the future of typesetting. 

Mosè, Have you seen how it thoroughly scans for map files? If you have
context installed, Do it in the terminal and type context <file>,
so you can see the process. Simplest route is by loading a module in the file
\setmainfont[<system font here>]
\input <file>

And to answer your question,, I don't think it'd break. It certainly, would
not break a function anymore than, (and the following is an analogy): than
a tufte-handout LaTeX document class, loaded with an acm bibliography
style, for the latter is beyond AucTeX's capabilities' reach to
handle. The cause of
the problem is in the document itself, which must be fixed, before continuing
any further.

> Are you sure "MKIV" is better and easier to recognize than "Mark IV"?
> Please bear in mind I'm not in ConTeXt, I don't know its naming
> conventions :-)
The convention officially settled with your  "Mark IV" remark. So from a
user's point-of-view, do you think the other definitions should stay the
same, or should follow the "Mark II" conventions?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]