Reputation
314
Top tag
Next privilege 500 Rep.
Access review queues
Badges
1 11
Newest
 Teacher
Impact
~5k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 97 votes cast
Dec
7
awarded  Teacher
Dec
7
comment utf8 inputenc vs. babel
@Andrew Swann, could you please fix your answer, incorporating my answer to it? Currently your suggestion for workaround breaks document compilation with old Babel.
Nov
17
comment utf8 inputenc vs. babel
A fix, which works with both the old and new Babel, \def\magyar@sugg@ie@low#1\@inpenc@undefined@#2#3\vfuzz#4{% has been implemented and available at math.bme.hu/~pts/cvsget.cgi/u=magyar/p=/M=lakk/c=f1/n=/lakk/…
Nov
17
comment utf8 inputenc vs. babel
FYI This workaround works only with the latest version of LaTeX and Babel. It actually breaks older versions.
Sep
23
awarded  Curious
Sep
22
accepted Why does TeX break the line between — and ,?
Sep
22
comment Why does TeX break the line between — and ,?
How do I make \showbox show this implicit \discretionary{}{}{}?
Sep
22
revised Why does TeX break the line between — and ,?
added 47 characters in body
Sep
22
comment Why does TeX break the line between — and ,?
Thank you for the insight. Unfortunately it doesn't answer any of my questions.
Sep
22
asked Why does TeX break the line between — and ,?
Dec
15
comment Why do people still use Postscript?
4. PostScript programs can generate the page algorithmically , thus they can be smaller than PDF for complex graphics. -- These differences are not always relevant (i.e. they don't affect the final output noticably), in those cases the correctness, speed and configurability of the available tools decides if PostScript or PDF is used.
Dec
15
comment Why do people still use Postscript?
This summarizes my understanding. 1. The same PostScript program can be run in different environments (e.g. with different page sizes), and it can do and draw different things based on the environment. PDF can't do this. 2. The same PostScript program can be run with an interpreter with more accurate number representation, thus the visual output can be of higher quality. PDF can do this only to a limited extent (by pushing multiple transformation matrices to the stack), so it can benefit less from better numeric accuracy. 3. PDF has some other features (e.g. videos, forms and JavaScript).
Dec
15
comment Why do people still use Postscript?
@JamesRyan: For the record, I completely disagree with your opinion on what I understand and what I don't. But luckily nobody else cares.
Dec
15
awarded  Critic
Dec
14
comment Why do people still use Postscript?
@JamesRyan: I'm 100% sure that I get what you said, but I'm interested in getting to know more. Do you know the answer to my question? Do you care sharing the answer with us?
Dec
14
comment Why do people still use Postscript?
@JamesRyan: Sure, I get it. But this doesn't answer my question about quality. Let's suppose the PostScript program always runs with the same input (e.g. same page size). I can't imagine a situation in which conversion to PDF loses visual quality, and it's not related to numeric precision. From our conversation it seems to me that you can imagine it. Could you please give an example?
Dec
12
comment Why do people still use Postscript?
@JamesRyan: I don't understand your point. Could you please clarify what the difference is if it has nothing to do with number length? Could you please give me a simple PostScript file which loses quality when converting to PDF, even with high quality conversion settings? I'd really like to understand, and based on your description I can't imagine what such a file would contain. A counterexample (whose visual quality does not decrease): 0 9 99 { newpath dup 0 moveto 0 -99 add neg exch lineto stroke } for showpage quit
Dec
12
comment Why do people still use Postscript?
@JamesRyan: Here is how I interpret your comment about the accuracy of PostScript. Table B.1. in adobe.com/products/postscript/pdfs/PLRM.pdf suggests that typically PostScript interpreters use the 4-byte float type to represent numbers. For example, Ghostscript also does it (see ghostscript.com/doc/current/Language.htm). Let's suppose that a PostScript interpreter is modified so that it will use 8 bytes (or even more) for a number, giving it better accuracy. Then some existing PostScript programs would produce slightly better visual quality, and most PDFs wouldn't benefit.
Dec
12
comment Why do people still use Postscript?
The print output quality of PostScript and PDF file formats is the same. If you use a good converter with the right settings, conversion from PDF to PostScript and back doesn't lose visual quality. The default settings of PDF and PostScript generators may be indeed different, PDF generators being set up to do lossy compression to decrease quality. So if a random PDF generator and a random PostScript generator are used with their default settings, it may be possible that the PostScript generator generators better visual quality. But this depends on the tools.
Jul
30
awarded  Popular Question