Hi all, Now I have some spare time, so I'd like to continue to discuss what we should do about this issue. I'm now a bit inclined to take the option (2) and ask gs-devel to provide suitable Postscript(?) code for preview-latex. What do others think?
Regards, Ikumi Keita >>>>> Ikumi Keita <ik...@ikumi.que.jp> writes: > Then, I'd like to ask other developers what we should do. Some options > which came to my mind, in no particular order, are: > (1) Make `preview-pdf-color-string' just a no-op and drop the feature > to match the foreground color of the generated image with the default > face of emacs. > (2) Find someone to revise the Postscript code in > `preview-pdf-color-string'. Maybe we can ask the developer of > Ghostscript, looking at the paragraphs [1]: > "The process of "tidying" the Postscript name space should have removed > only non-standard and undocumented operators. Nevertheless, it is > possible that any integrations or utilities that rely on those > non-standard and undocumented operators may stop working, or may change > behaviour. > If you encounter such a case, please contact us (either the #ghostscript > IRC channel, or the gs-devel mailing list would be best), and we'll work > with you to either find an alternative solution." > (I'm not sure this is a good idea or not, since similar problems may > recur in future even if the current case is resolved.) > (3) Find and ask someone to develop elisp code along with the David's > suggestion of circumventing pdf2dsc. (Though I have an impression that > it's difficult to find a person skillful enough to carry out such a > task, other than David himself.) > Of course the alternatives are not limited to the above three. > [1] https://www.ghostscript.com/doc/9.27/History9.htm _______________________________________________ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex