Re: the ConTeXt terminal

[Mojca M. <moj...@gm...>]

On 6/17/06, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> > I know that I could ignore the PostScript graphic commands, but I need
> > to study the way how (La)TeX &.PostScript are integrated/how separate
> > files are handled inside Gnuplot, etc. I have to patch/integrate both
> > terminals in this case. I'm planning to do that, but it's not really
> > the priority unless someone confident with that code would be willing
> > to help. For the moment is was much easier to write my own code for
> > doing the graphic.
>
> Well, it's up to you of course, and both methods have their benefits.  But if you haven't given combined LaTeX/PostScript a try, it is worth understanding.

As soon as I manage to do the rest, I'll look into it.

> >>Unless ConTeXt is improving on TeX graphics, from what I've seen PostScript is better than TeX graphics.  Much nicer looking and controllable arrows, etc.
> >
> > What exactly do you mean by TeX graphics? \begin{picture} is useless
> > from my point of view, picTeX might be slightly better(?),
>
> Yes, this is what I was referring to, TeX graphics worthless.

I would agree with it. PSTricks might be a bit better, but then again:
they don't work with pdfTeX well. There are some more packages around,
but once I saw metapost, I didn't want to exchange it for anything
else for static 2D drawings.

> > which outputs a PostScript file which is postpocessed (converted to
> > PDF with special trickery) and included into final PDF literally.
>
> Something like ps2pdf, I take it.

No, self-written (assuming the simple output from metapost).

>
> > I
> > don't know how exactly it works if a flavour of TeX other than pdfTeX
> > is used, for example XeTeX, with DVI file as an intermediate step
> > (.tex -> .dvi -> PDF). But when XeTeX came out for the Linux platform
> > last monts, Hans was sitting the whole afternoon behind the laptop
> > trying to fix the existing code, so that transparency started to work
> > with XeTeX as well.
> >
> > But the nice part of it is that I don't really have to care about what
> > is going on behind the scenes: it simply works (with exceptions of
> > bugs).
>
> "It" meaning what simply works?

I just wanted to say that I don't have to care about calling dozens of
conversions inbetween. Very simple syntax integrates TeX and graphics
pretty well. (The conversions happen behind the scenes.)

> Yes, I see that now having paged through Hans H.'s amazing document metafun-s.pdf.  Wow, he put a lot of work into that!  I wonder, though, why he didn't simply format the text more like a book as opposed to slides.

It's more convenient to use on the computer. You also have a paper
version from the same source:
http://www.pragma-ade.com/general/manuals/metafun-p.pdf.

(see http://www.pragma-ade.com/overview.htm)

> I find the gray, seemingly random borders a tad disorienting and annoying.

They are random (each time when a source is compiled they come out
differently, but PDF isn't able to handle randomness, so they are
"fixed"). However: I like the design, but that's my personal opinion
only.

Mojca