area. Very annoying though I agree.
Best wishes,
Chris travers
Thought that was cool? Try the iPhone App or Grab Some Stickers.
App Store
PayPal
$1/sticker
Play it again or Create one yourself.
Very useful. Not.
Philip Taylor
. Personally, I would like to help, but I have to wait
until Autumn: in the summer one cannot think clearly especially
when it is too hot.
Great. In your estimation, what can the community do to help support
you getting started here?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
it is at
though.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
128-bit words
and then will pop in again ;-)
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
.
The advantage of this approach is that people who don't want to worry
about what sort of whitespace is in text files they are inputting
don't have to worry about it, and that those who do have an easy way
of determining if a layout issue is caused by non-breaking spaces.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
2011/11/15 Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com:
2011/11/15 Mike Maxwell maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu:
On 11/15/2011 5:39 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
My recommendation is:
1) Default to handling all white space as it exists now.
2) Provide some sort of switch, whether to the execution of XeTeX
strike against that language, for example, from a semantic
clarity perspective despite the fact that this was ironically a
decision that was made in order to support semantic clarity.
TeX files are never simple plain text files, and I don't think we
should pretend that they are.
Best Wishes,
Chris
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Petr Tomasek toma...@etf.cuni.cz wrote:
Using different color.
Do we really want to tie XeTeX users to a small number of editors?
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Chris Travers wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Petr Tomasektoma...@etf.cuni.cz wrote:
Using different color.
Do we really want to tie XeTeX users to a small number of editors?
No. But nor do we want
, actually
break lines?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
in
comparison to VIM.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Chris Travers wrote:
Ok, so why don't we have a similar macro here? Something like:
\obeynbsps
See above : there are /some/ things that TeX does that
transcend category codes (which are the basis for \obeylines
of a feature which
is on by default, and requires color highlighting of whitespace in an
editor to debug. If it is off by default, then when you see the on
switch, at least you know where problems might be.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Mu EUR 0,02 :
Chris Travers wrote:
A couple things I'd point out. TeX makes it possible to create
beautiful books. LaTeX makes it possible to create beautiful books
easily.
but encourages users
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Chris Travers wrote:
If TexLive had been around in 2002 and was statically linking to zlib,
it would have been affected too. TeX does not link against zlib but
LaTeX and XeTeX do.
Similarly
2011/10/20 Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com:
2011/10/20 Petr Tomasek toma...@etf.cuni.cz:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 03:14:56PM +0200, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
Am Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:43:57 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
This has all been very helpful. At least I have things narrowed down
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 um 12:53 schrieb Chris Travers:
However, statically linking things strikes me as even worse from a
stability/security perspective (which is what is critical with server
software). It means
,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
for
such a tool.
The thing is, though, just because it's a good tool for some
environments doesn't mean it's a good tool for everything. Not
everything is a nail, and not even all nails need the same kinds of
hammers..
Best wishes,
Chris Travers
PCI-DSS compliance quite a bit harder and more burdensome.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 um 13:24 schrieb Chris Travers:
So if libz needs a security update, I can get it without replacing
everything else
What do you gain with that? What is the difference between overwriting 5 MB
or 50
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 um 16:12 schrieb Chris Travers:
Not disturbing other dependencies that production software depends on.
It can't. It does not carry shared libraries, DLLs, or such, that make
ld_config or such go
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 um 16:54 schrieb Chris Travers:
One of the other commentors talks about documents that don't render on
all versions of TexLive. If a client of mine is depending on this
working, upgrading the various
. It seems for those of us with a
longer memory, extensive static linking is asking for trouble
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
it for another 5-6 (For example RedHat
supports versions of PostgreSQL that are up to 7 years old,
backporting security fixes from newer ones). Obviously things are
more dire than that with RHEL 6 and TexLive...
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions
must. The fact that they are outdated makes no
difference.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Ulrike Fischer ne...@nililand.de wrote:
Am Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:59:16 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
This matches my needs very well. If my clients are running accounting
systems, the last thing I want is an upgrade of TexLive to break their
ability to generate
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 19.10.2011 um 12:19 schrieb Chris Travers:
If RHEL 6 (released about a year ago) is sticking to TeXLive 2007, we all
have problems.
The only problem is that of understanding. It's like the fifth wheel
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Joseph Wright
joseph.wri...@morningstar2.co.uk wrote:
The 'expiry date' in LaTeX2e was there for good reasons, and reflected a
desire to avoid buggy and out-of-date software
Hi all;
I need to generate the xelatex.fmt file. Apparently Fedora doesn't create
these files. It is not a new issue, I have had issues with the latex.fmt
files not created in the past.
Is there any way to manually create this file?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
.
###
This is a summary of all `failed' messages and warnings:
`xetex -ini -jobname=xelatex -progname=xelatex -etex xelatex.ini' failed
Any idea of what I do about this?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Susan Dittmar susan.ditt...@gmx.de wrote:
Quoting Chris Travers (chris.trav...@gmail.com):
! LaTeX source files more than 5 years old!.
Any idea of what I do about this?
I did not follow the thread closely. Are you the administrator of the
system? If so, I'd
argue about whether these distros are too shy about upgrades,
but users don't like to hear that their shiny rpm or .deb requires
that they also track down large dependencies from external sources not
in any repository for their distro.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
in these environments?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
and outlined why, and folks decided to push the
issue. What I don't understand is what is to be gained by pushing the
issue.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
characters. Removing the \textbf{} from around the problem phrase
ends up having it rendered as Descripciendhead, suggesting several
more bytes are being assumed to be part of the character than actually
are.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Two further notes: I am using utf-8 as the input encoding, and
setting a main font doesn't help.
Also
[chris@chris-dev2 xetex_test]$ rpm -q texlive-xetex
texlive-xetex-2007-51.fc13.i686
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive
beyond the scope of this
list :-)
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 12.10.2011 um 00:10 schrieb Chris Travers:
texlive-xetex-2007-51.fc13.i686
Now that the 2011 is almost finished you could consider updating to TeX Live
2011…
Less of an option when trying to support applications
39 matches
Mail list logo
