On 10/28/2016 08:35 PM, Asim ConTeXt wrote:
Thank you. I want to use MkII because, as far as I know, MkII uses pdfTeX; which is stable. While MkIV uses LuaTeX; which is yet in development. Further, pdfTeX is better at microtypography. Am I correct at these two points? I would like to hear from you.
Hi Asim, I’m only an average user. But I guess LuaTeX is pretty stable (version 1 was released recently). I have no complain about LuaTeX microtypography. I mean, I use both font expansion and character protrusion, and they work fine for me. But I’m not a LaTeX user. If you took the data from http://mirrors.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/microtype/microtype.pdf#page=7, please don’t forget that the LuaTeX version included in that table is old. Maybe you find interesting this thread about microtypography in ConTeXt: https://mailman.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/2016/084990.html.
I found that my system fonts are located at c:\windows\fonts, so I added this address in front of OSFONTDIR in texmf.cnf file. But it still is not working, although the previous warning message has now gone. ConTeXt now silently stops the processing and does not give any output file.
I’d rather use MkIV. But if you want to stick to MkII, consider the following variants: OSFONTDIR = $SystemRoot/Fonts OSFONTDIR = c:/Windows/Fonts I cannot remember, but I think using "\" is problematic with TeX (even for path names). Just in case it might help, Pablo -- http://www.ousia.tk