On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 at 5:03am, Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com wrote
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 21:33 +0100, Kostas Georgiou wrote:
So, is a dvi viewer needed in core?
It depends. One can use pdftex/pdflatex instead of tex/latex so that DVI viewers (and gv, dvips) are not needed in this case as the PDF is the only output. The dvips + gv way isn't always too smooth and I have to say that xdvi is still the best dvi viewer despite of its age.
If the most of the teTeX users accepts the usage of pdftex tools, then moving at least some of the dvi tools to Extras makes sense.
In contrast to your experience, I've always found latex/dvips to be smoother and less error prone than pdflatex. And to agree with your other point, xdvi is definitely the best DVI viewer. Viewing the .dvi is the way just about all the teTeX users I support work -- why bother emedding the images in an output file until you really need to?
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:34:38 -0400 (EDT), Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 at 5:03am, Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com wrote
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 21:33 +0100, Kostas Georgiou wrote:
So, is a dvi viewer needed in core?
It depends. One can use pdftex/pdflatex instead of tex/latex so that DVI viewers (and gv, dvips) are not needed in this case as the PDF is the only output. The dvips + gv way isn't always too smooth and I have to say that xdvi is still the best dvi viewer despite of its age.
If the most of the teTeX users accepts the usage of pdftex tools, then moving at least some of the dvi tools to Extras makes sense.
In contrast to your experience, I've always found latex/dvips to be smoother and less error prone than pdflatex. And to agree with your other point, xdvi is definitely the best DVI viewer. Viewing the .dvi
What about Active-DVI¹. It's the one recommended by whizzytex².
is the way just about all the teTeX users I support work -- why bother emedding the images in an output file until you really need to?
-- Joshua Baker-LePain Department of Biomedical Engineering Duke University
Footnotes: ¹ http://pauillac.inria.fr/advi/#requirements ² http://cristal.inria.fr/whizzytex/
Leon (sdl.web@gmail.com) said:
In contrast to your experience, I've always found latex/dvips to be smoother and less error prone than pdflatex. And to agree with your other point, xdvi is definitely the best DVI viewer. Viewing the .dvi
What about Active-DVI¹. It's the one recommended by whizzytex².
Objective CAML???? :)
Bill
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:38:19 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Leon (sdl.web@gmail.com) said:
In contrast to your experience, I've always found latex/dvips to be smoother and less error prone than pdflatex. And to agree with your other point, xdvi is definitely the best DVI viewer. Viewing the .dvi
What about Active-DVI¹. It's the one recommended by whizzytex².
Objective CAML???? :)
Just want to show there is something better than xdvi :-)
Bill
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 00:32 +0100, Leon wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:38:19 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Leon (sdl.web@gmail.com) said:
In contrast to your experience, I've always found latex/dvips to be smoother and less error prone than pdflatex. And to agree with your other point, xdvi is definitely the best DVI viewer. Viewing the .dvi
What about Active-DVI¹. It's the one recommended by whizzytex².
Objective CAML???? :)
Just want to show there is something better than xdvi :-)
I just made an rpm for advi and tried it out. It is certainly not better than xdvi. For example, it doesn't support virtual fonts, which is pretty essential nowadays.
-
Bill Nottingham -
Gérard Milmeister -
Joshua Baker-LePain -
Leo