Hi,

are quite different... There are some warnings in newer one (about doubled map entries) but shouldn't play a role here. Thanks for any hints!

right. You might want to clean up the map files, but that is not important. tl7: ConTeXt ver: 2002.5.24 fmt: 2003.10.6 int: english mes: english tl8: ConTeXt ver: 2003.10.5 fmt: 2003.10.10 int: english mes: english Patrick -- next attempt, please ;-)

From: "Pawel Jackowski na Onet" Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 9:29 AM

At 11:09 11/10/2003, you wrote:

...

Hi,

...

are quite different... There are some warnings in newer one (about doubled map entries) but shouldn't play a role here. Thanks for any hints!

From: "Patrick Gundlach" Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 11:09 AM

...

right. You might want to clean up the map files, but that is not important.

tl7: ConTeXt ver: 2002.5.24 fmt: 2003.10.6 int: english mes: english tl8: ConTeXt ver: 2003.10.5 fmt: 2003.10.10 int: english mes: english

Ok, the difference is about 17 months in ConTeXt version, while formats are quite fresh... Can't see the clue :-? From: "Hans Hagen" Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 11:34 AM

actually, cleaning up really matters! I have my own alternative map files without the "Internal Font Names" since that will mess up pdf inclusion of fonts with similar names but different instances (slanted etc)

I admit that maps in my tl8 installation aren't cleaned up already; I have to spend some time to make it in the way that suits me best. But the problem I sent doesn't look to be font-dependent. Every characters are found at this moment, so I put the problem off. Lets consider the following code: \setupitemize[4,packed] \starttext \startitemize[n] \item one \item two \item three \stopitemize \stoptext The problem is that in newer installation, default itemize style (meaning packed, with triangle symbol) IS FORCED instead of style given direclty (just numbering). The older one do what I would expect; numbered style has a priority. So after running tl8 I get three items with triangles, but after running tl7 I get three numbered items. Why it is so? Has anything been changed in itemizing mechanism? I will accept all changes with pleasure, but the point is to understand what is going on :-D Thanks, Pawe/l

From: "Patrick Gundlach" Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 6:48 PM

Hi,

...

...

...

tl7: ConTeXt ver: 2002.5.24 fmt: 2003.10.6 int: english mes: english tl8: ConTeXt ver: 2003.10.5 fmt: 2003.10.10 int: english mes: english

Ok, the difference is about 17 months in ConTeXt version, while formats are quite fresh... Can't see the clue :-?

Sorry for not being in verbose mode. You say you compare tl7 with tl8 but you are using two different (very different) context versions. I bet that tl7 will genrate the same output as tl8 if you use the 2003.10.5 context. Or that tl8 generates the same output with 2002.5.24 as tl7.

I belive so!

I was confused with the fact that you mention the tl version. But the most important one is the context version. Can't give you a better answer today.

I should describe it more precisely. I use installations (2 at the moment) based on TL distributions. I tried to upgrade ConTeXt many times using pragma archives, but unfortunately couldn't do that transparently, meaning in the way that all my current job will be compiled without problems. That is why I have to do this 17-months step now. Anyway, I'm aware, that ConTeXt is developing quite fast and I probably shouldn't expect, that 2002.524 and 2003.10.5 versions gives the same output. Could you give me a recipe to spy changes? I'm sure they are documented, but don't know how to get them. Thanks, Pawe/l

At 11:59 12/10/2003, you wrote:

Hi,

...

I should describe it more precisely. I use installations (2 at the moment) based on TL distributions.

With the supplied ConTeXt versions?

...

Anyway, I'm aware, that ConTeXt is developing quite fast and I probably shouldn't expect, that 2002.524 and 2003.10.5 versions gives the same output

IMO you should be allowed to expect that your old documents still work. But that is not the way it is.

it depends, there are some areas where small changes are made, for instance in thinsg related to grid snapping and special float placement; i try to guard compatibility so if you run into anoying incompatibilities, let me know Hans

At 17:36 11/10/2003, you wrote:

Lets consider the following code:

\setupitemize[4,packed] \starttext \startitemize[n] \item one \item two \item three \stopitemize \stoptext

The problem is that in newer installation, default itemize style (meaning packed, with triangle symbol) IS FORCED instead of style given direclty (just numbering). The older one do what I would expect; numbered style has a

hm, i'll look into it; it's probably related to the fact that last year itemize became definable and retaining downward compatibility for the \setupitemize command was tricky Hans

Problem: a (very) different ConTeXt versions and a different output From: "Hans Hagen" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:52 PM

At 17:36 11/10/2003, you wrote:

...

Lets consider the following code:

\setupitemize[4,packed] \starttext \startitemize[n] \item one \item two \item three \stopitemize \stoptext

The problem is that in newer installation, default itemize style (meaning packed, with triangle symbol) IS FORCED instead of style given direclty (just numbering). The older one do what I would expect; numbered style has a

hm, i'll look into it; it's probably related to the fact that last year itemize became definable and retaining downward compatibility for the \setupitemize command was tricky

Thanks in advance. The simplest way to customize that code to suit the fresh context versions is to comment first line, so I can live with it. Pawe/l