Subject: Re: jadetex test version 2.3 From: apharris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Adam P. Harris) Date: 20 Oct 1998 02:57:05 -0400 |
In article <199810191752.TAA16494@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, cg@xxxxxxxxx (Cees de Groot) writes: > s.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx said: >> I'd appreciate some feedback from brave people who are not scared >> of JadeTeX, on version 2.3 at >> http://www.tug.org/applications/jadetex/ jadetex.dtx > Sounds like this one is not fit for 2.0 :-). sgml-tools 2.0? Why not? I'm curious because Debian 2.1 is going into freeze and I'd like to know if we should try to get a new jadetex into that release. > OBTW: am I right in concluding that nTeX is preferrable above teTeX > for SGMLtools, because a) it supports dynamic configuration values > and b) it seems to be more actively maintained? tetex is pretty actively maintained, it's just in beta for like a year now and rather hard to find. <URL:ftp://ftp.rrzn.uni-hannover.de/pub/local/misc/teTeX-beta/>. I'm running a version now (Debian slink offical) dated 8 October 1998. As for dynamic reconfiguration, that is supported in tetex AFAIK, i.e., you can adjust pool sizes without recompiling... .....A. P. Harris...apharris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<URL:http://www.onShore.com/> DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: jadetex test version 2.3, James H. Cloos Jr. | Thread | DocBook stylesheets 1.19 released, Norman Walsh |
[no subject], Cees de Groot | Date | Re: DocBook stylesheets 1.19 releas, Adam P. Harris |
Month |