[Textures] Beta 11 is out

Paolo Matteucci p.n.matteucci at gmail.com
Wed Aug 19 07:21:15 EDT 2009

Bruno, thank you for your note.
I’d like to ask you a somewhat related question. My two main problems with
Textures have always been that it doesn’t support (or didn’t use to support
—not quite sure where we’ve got to with the latest beta release) hyperref
fully and, much more importantly, (2) [although Textures was probably the
first TeX program ever to be able to access "system fonts" easily] there
isn’t [yet] a way to access [à la XeTeX, say] all AAT/OT font glyphs

What are your thoughts about these two points? Have you got any "inside
information" about if and when these issues might be resolved?



2009/8/18 Bruno Voisin <bvoisin at me.com>

> Le 18 août 09 à 18:36, jean-Yves Lainé a écrit :
>  a force d'attendre en vain, je suis passé à TEXSHOP et m'en accommode très
>> bien.
>> Certes, il me manque la façon "spécial" pour introduire des schémas dans
>> mon fichier.
>> Avec Textshop, je dois créer un fichier pdf, qui doit se trouver dans le
>> même dossier que mon fichier.
>> Mais je m'en accommode, surtout que TEXSHOP est gratuit.
>> Croyez-vous qu'il serait intéressant de revenir à TEXTURES?
> Hi,
> Answering in English I'll just paste an extract of an off-list message I
> sent today:
>  As it happens, I just finished last night a long document on which I'd
>> been working for months. [...] For final production I used TeXShop and
>> TeXworks, as I needed PDF bookmarks and embedded hyperlinks in the PDF
>> output and also some characters from the TX fonts. I also needed PNG support
>> to produce an under-2MB alternative PDF version using 72-dpi PNG bitmaps
>> instead of the original vectorial embedded graphic. But for working on the
>> document I used Textures a lot.
>> There are GUI features from TeXshop and TeXworks which I miss in Textures,
>> of course (block comment and indent in the editor, syntax coloring, split
>> views in the editor and previewer, tags in the editor and TOC in the
>> previewer, in particular). But they don't compete for productivity with
>> Textures' Flash Mode (it's so nice to see the result of what you're typing
>> appear instantaneously, it helps a lot to get the wording and expression and
>> organization of ideas right), and with Textures' source-preview
>> synchronization to the character (SyncTeX is much less precise).
>> So, even though I'm significantly involved in the production of MacTeX and
>> beta-testing of TeXShop and TeXworks (if you've access to the MacTeX and
>> TeXworks lists you've already seen this), I keep using Textures often and
>> liking it a lot. I like especially the polish of all that's implemented
>> GUI-wise, very true to the Apple excellence spirit, for example the "slider"
>> for selecting a page in the previewer (the fact that the page displayed
>> underneath is updated real-time), and the magnifying glass (this little
>> touch of having the non-magnified view still visible but grayed out and
>> dimmed).
> One selling point too may be the ability to include TIFF images with the
> new b11. With pdfTeX dropping TIFF support a few years back, there's only
> XeTeX in xdv2pdf mode allowing inclusion of TIFF files on the Mac for now,
> but xdv2pdf is quietly put to retirement by Jonathan Kew (the XeTeX
> developer) in favour of xdvipdfmx. So Textures seems the only alternative,
> and I know publishers who insist on TIFF for figures.
> There's another reason, but it's really a matter of personal taste. TeXShop
> has got a bit too complicated for my taste, with too many menu items and
> buttons and preference options, etc., generally as answers to users'
> requests. Stuff like auto-completion and the like, palettes, helpers, the
> enhanced Search/Replace panel, etc., stuff in which I'm personally not
> interested at all. TeXworks is also going the same route, again because
> these are the first features new users are requesting.
> In my experience these are things you think about when you are discovering
> a new tool, when you're just a casual user. But when you are working on
> something, really focused, really using the tool, all that you need is
> something reliable and fast and easy to use and for the most part working
> transparently in the background, and in this respect all the sophisticated
> UI features I just mentioned tend to get in the way instead of helping.
> For example, in my view it's more important that a variety of graphical
> formats are recognized transparently (EPS, PDF, PICT, TIFF, JPEG, TIFF)
> without needing any preliminary conversion, than to have sophisticated input
> modes or auto-completion features.
> So, at least for me, Textures is really a bonus with the bare-bones
> simplicity of its interface, comprising only a few elements but impeccably
> executed.
> Bruno Voisin_______________________________________________
> Textures mailing list
> Textures at email.esm.psu.edu
> List Page: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/textures
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://email.esm.psu.edu/pipermail/textures/attachments/20090819/27d9ce58/attachment.html>

More information about the Textures mailing list