[XeTeX] pdfpages?

[Andreas Matthias]

Peter Dyballa wrote:

> Am 02.11.2007 um 23:54 schrieb Andreas Matthias:
> 
>> Actually, I was just talking about the graphics.sty drivers, i.e.
>> xetex.def versus dvipdfm.def. And I supposed that dvipdfm.def is
>> a subset of xetex.def, but I am not sure of that.
> 
> It is not.

Ok. So it is not a subset but then what's the difference between
  \usepackage[dvipdfm]{graphicx}
and
  \usepackage[xetex]{graphicx}?
When do you use which graphics' driver?


> XeTeX ends at the XDVI file stage. This file contains, as  
> in a DVI file, for example the font information and the positioning  
> of glyphs on the page (some region), not aiming at a particular  
> device. Then you have at least two choices: convert to useful PDF  
> with either xdvipdfmx or xdv2pdf (the latter only in Mac OS X). Or  
> leave the file as useless as is, or delete it, or rename it, or ...  
> Since xdvipdfmx can exist now on every platform it is a new default  
> for XeTeX's output driver, even in Mac OS X when the TeX distribution  
> is quite recent.
> 
>> 
>> And there is no xdvipdfmx.def or xdv2pdf.def, isn't there?
> 
> Yes! For what? The latter might not make much sense because the  
> graphics "drivers" do not care about proprietary software that much  
> (and might need programmes to utilise Quartz). And the former is an  
> extension to the extension of dvipdfm to handle CJK and TTF and OTF.  
> There is nothing added to extend the PDF format, so dvipdfm is the  
> correct "mode name."
> 
>> 
>> I was not talking about the binaries dvipdfm, xdvipdfmx, and xdv2pdf.
> 
> I did understand that, clearly. When I mentioned binaries, then in a  
> try to explain that XeTeX can't know for sure whether it's running in  
> (for final) xdvipdfmx or xdv2pdf mood. All the specials inserted into  
> the XDVI file are handled by either the xdvipdfmx or the xdv2pdf  
> binary. XeTeX is therefore nearer to some old  and traditional TeX  
> that needs a DVI to whatever convertor.

Do we talk at cross-purposes? I think I do understand the aforementioned.


Ciao
Andreas