On 10/28/2016 08:35 PM, Asim ConTeXt wrote: > Thank you. > I want to use MkII because, as far as I know, MkII uses pdfTeX; which is > stable. While MkIV uses LuaTeX; which is yet in development. Further, > pdfTeX is better at microtypography. > Am I correct at these two points? I would like to hear from you.
Hi Asim, I’m only an average user. But I guess LuaTeX is pretty stable (version 1 was released recently). I have no complain about LuaTeX microtypography. I mean, I use both font expansion and character protrusion, and they work fine for me. But I’m not a LaTeX user. If you took the data from http://mirrors.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/microtype/microtype.pdf#page=7, please don’t forget that the LuaTeX version included in that table is old. Maybe you find interesting this thread about microtypography in ConTeXt: https://mailman.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/2016/084990.html. > I found that my system fonts are located at c:\windows\fonts, so I added > this address in front of OSFONTDIR in texmf.cnf file. But it still is > not working, although the previous warning message has now gone. ConTeXt > now silently stops the processing and does not give any output file. I’d rather use MkIV. But if you want to stick to MkII, consider the following variants: OSFONTDIR = $SystemRoot/Fonts OSFONTDIR = c:/Windows/Fonts I cannot remember, but I think using "\" is problematic with TeX (even for path names). Just in case it might help, Pablo -- http://www.ousia.tk ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : [email protected] / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
