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,

If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the 

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

Reply via email to