On 4/27/19 1:15 PM, Hans Hagen wrote: > On 4/27/2019 12:22 PM, Pablo Rodriguez wrote: >> Hi Hans, >> >> compiling the following sample with LMTX >> [...] >> \contextmark >> [...] >> outputs MKIV. >> >> Wouldn’t LMTX be a better option than LMTX? > > Why? Although there are some fundamental differences deep down, the LMTX > version has the MKIV functionality. There might be a point where we bind > a frozen version of MKIV to LuaTeX, but only when the code base becomes > too hybrid to my taste. Of course there will be functionality only > available when you use LMTX, but that is something Wolfgang and I need > to figure out wrr the interface specification. Also, Alan and I need to > deal with in the MetaFun code and documentation. At some point Taco and > Mojca might want granularity in the Wiki. We'll see. I have no clue when > users will have switched to lmtx for production anyway, as it's not > something we want to enforce. (fwfw: I run lmtx by default.)
Well, it was only an idea... which seems to be wrong. Many thanks for your help, Pablo -- http://www.ousia.tk ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________
