[tex-live] Re: Please drop the DVI-with-pdfTeX hack!

[Jonathan Fine]

"David Kastrup" <dak at gnu.org> wrote in message
news:85irxbrbji.fsf at lola.goethe.zz...
> "Jonathan Fine" <J.Fine at open.ac.uk> writes:

<snip>

>>> The advantage of this change is that now packages like
>>> microtype.sty can be used to produce DVI files with the
>> microtypographical extensions from pdfTeX.
>>
>> In other words, the microtypographic extensions.
>>
>> But you are saying it is all pdfTeX additional primitives.
>>
>> Could someone clarify this.  Which is it?

> Microtypographic extensions implemented by additional primitives.

Thank you for this.

My understanding is that, if you are right, then microtype.sty and
the like are the main beneficiaries of the proposed change.


"Ralf Stubner" <ralf.stubner at physik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote in message
news:lz7jdrissk.fsf at tfkp12.physik.uni-erlangen.de...

<snip>

> One can already use the 'DVIoutput' option of microtype.sty and then use
> pdflatex to produce a DVI file, but that makes parallel output of DVI
> and PDF at least difficult. Of course, microtype.sty could be changed to
> check for one of the not-masked \pdf... primitives first, but I think a
> check for the value of \pdfoutput would still be needed, since
> microtype.sty as different defaults for PDF and DVI output.

So it seems, as I understand it, that microtype.sty can be changed.

> I am not
> sure if these changes would be ready before the 2005 release ...

This seems to me to confirm my original view, that the microtype.sty
tail is wagging the TeX dog.


Somewhat off-topic.  I got the following query today from a user:
> Now I get (non fatal) message
> LaTeX error Command name \marks already defined
>             Or name \end illegal

A file that used to work is no longer working.

And the user thought it was something he had done.

The problem is due, of course, to LaTeX now using eTeX, which
defines a new primitive \marks.

-- 
Jonathan