Talk:Device independent file format

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Device independent file format was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 19, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

I didn't bother to move this from DVI, it needs a reference or something:

A lack of easy-to-use DVI software on microcomputers may be one of the reasons TeX did not compete against systems such as Adobe Acrobat.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ( (talk • contribs) 15:57, 15 March 2003.

I'm not even sure it's true. Maybe it just needs a lot of qualifications. Note that a lot of people using TeX today (esp. on Windows) use it by generating a PDF and viewing the output in Acrobat Reader. (Of course, I don't think TeX was ever "competing" with Acrobat: they do different things.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.16.250.66 (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2004

I don't think TeX was ever "competing" with Acrobat: they do different things.

In particular, Acrobat is more "portable" in the sense that the fonts are (usually) embedded. With a DVI file, there can be problems when attempting to view on another system having fonts with the same name but different metrics. So, I agree that DVI never really competed against Acrobat (apples and quinces). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.220.141 (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2005

It says on the page that Donald Knuth was the designer. This is completely wrong -- it was in fact designed by David Fuchs in 1979 (see dvitype.web). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.240.70.73 (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2006

I'd fixed this before reading the talk page, but the next time you notice a mistake, feel free to correct it without waiting for permission. grendel|khan 19:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licenses of many fonts available in TeX distributions don't allow any modifications without changing the name of the file, so metrics should be the same. Example from cmr10.mf:

% THIS IS THE OFFICIAL COMPUTER MODERN SOURCE FILE cmr10.mf BY D E KNUTH.
% IT MUST NOT BE MODIFIED IN ANY WAY UNLESS THE FILE NAME IS CHANGED!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.239.31.186 (talk) 2006-12-30T14:07:59

GA nomination failed

I have failed the article according to the GA criteria. The article is not broad enough, with only two sections of information. If you can, add a picture or two with the appropriate licenses, perhaps one you've taken yourself. The article also needs a lot more references. Include inline citations to increase the verifiability of the article. Once these issues are addressed, among the other criteria, please consider resubmitting again for GAC. --Nehrams2020 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lion

Does anyone know the significance of the lion? And if so would they be so good as to add that information to the article? I see it crops up in numerous packages, including the KDE desktop icon for DVI files, the xdvi viewer program, the Kile editor, etc. Thanks! --Bigdaddyedward 14:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the TeX mascot.--Oneiros 14:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xdvi

I've created a new article titled xdvi. It's still quite stubby. Have fun improving and extending it. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dvipdfm and recent TeX distros

It appears it was actually dropped from MikTeX 2.9 (which only has binary for it for version 2.7) and also by Tex Live 2014. The CTAN page for dvipdfm doesn't mention inclusion in any distros, whereas the one for dvipdfmx lists MikTeX and TL, and also notes that "Dvipdfmx, if “called” with the name dvipdfm, operates in a “dvipdfm compatibility” mode, so that users of the both packages need only keep one executable." It also seems pretty clear from that page that the CTAN guys are now the maintainers of dvipdfmx. JMP EAX (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that change happened before 2011 [1]. JMP EAX (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And around 2012 they were working to merge XeTeX's fork (xdvipdfmx) [2]. I'm not yet sure what, if anything came of that effort. JMP EAX (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dvipdf (by Lesenko)

Apparently it was released, although perhaps way too late; I found this Windows(?) version from around 2000: [3]. I think it became (part of or precursor of) BakoMa TeX eventually. JMP EAX (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Device independent file format. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]