Werner LEMBERG escreveu: >> IMNSHO, dvi/dvips/xdvi is a broken combo and should be euthenasized >> asap. > > Why do you think so? Note that dvipdfmx is far superior to pdftex
I think DVI is a poor format. If the end result is to be PDF, it's best to keep the path as short as possible and generate it directly. Things I hate of dvi - Lack of tools on windows/macos compared to PS and esp. PDF. - Necessity of nonstandard specials for anything interesting (rotation, graphics, etc) - Fonts not included in DVI file, hence endless "fun" dealing with the manifestations of TeX braindamage - eg having edit endless .cfg/.map/.ot1/.fd files to get a Type1 file into (La)TeX - Crappy tools. Looking inside any TeX related code (except that written by Don Knuth) always makes me cringe. Have a look inside Xdvi to see what I mean. Or, consider [EMAIL PROTECTED] pronounce2html]$ valgrind dvips XXXX.dvi ==566== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) ==566== at 0x80587A8: (within /usr/bin/dvips) ==566== by 0x804FC3E: (within /usr/bin/dvips) ==566== by 0x217F2B: (below main) (in /lib/libc-2.5.so) > currently w.r.t. CJK fonts. In most cases, the resulting files are > smaller by at least 40%. Additionally, pdftex doesn't support > automatic creation of ToUnicode cmaps (which dvipdfmx does). I assume > that this will be fixed eventually, but it hasn't happened yet AFAIK. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ Cjk maillist - [email protected] https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/cjk
