[email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Philip Taylor wrote:
I'm sorry, what has LaTeX to do with any of this ?
You don't want to hear about XeLaTeX, but you write:
(X)DVIPDFM(X). Since (X)DVIPDFM(X) is indeed an integral part of the XeTeX
tool chain, I think that documenting how to access its functionality (with
The tool chain is XeLaTeX. LaTeX is just as much an integral part of that
as XDVIPDFMX is. Users of this tool chain use all three together by
typing a single command and don't care much which level executes which
macro. It still makes sense to ask for documentation of each component
alone, because people including yourself do also use the tools separately.
But having made that request, "integrated tool chain" is not a sound basis
to ask for documentation of a "XeTeX and XDVIPDFMX but not LaTeX"
combination, which is neither the components alone nor the complete
tool chain. It should be no surprise that documentation of pure XeTeX is
documentation of pure XeTeX and does not include XDVIPDFMX features.
I'm sorry, Matthew, I can only think you are confusing XeTeX with some
other system. If I type (for example)
XeTeX My-file
and I have /a priori/ a file "My-file.tex", then XeTeX will process that
file and emit (assuming no compilation errors) a file "My-file.pdf". I
do not have to type (for example)
XeTeX My-file
(X)DviPdfm(X)
That latter stage is intrinsic to XeTeX and requires no explicit user
action.
If, however, I want to compile (for example) "My-LaTeX-file.tex", then
I either have to load the format explicitly :
XeTeX &LaTeX My-LaTeX-file
or I have to invoke a command that is already aliased to that :
XeLaTeX My-LaTeX-file
Thus LaTeX is /not/ intrinsic to the XeTeX tool chain, whilst
(X)DviPdfm(x) is.
Philip Taylor
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
