# [XeTeX] XeTeX, XeTeXpicfile, and counter-intuitive behaviour

Philip TAYLOR P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk
Thu Dec 1 17:47:30 CET 2011


Heiko Oberdiek wrote:

> It's your choice to use low level internals. Higher level interfaces
> are already written and some can also be used with plain TeX:
>
> \input miniltx
> \def\Gin at driver{xetex.def}
> \input graphicx.sty
> \resetatcatcode
>
> \noindent
> \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{s1.png}
> \vfil
> \eject
> \bye
>
> Thus there is no need to know the difference between the low level
> commands \XeTeXpicfile and \XeTeXpdffile for the end user.

There is no need for me to understand TeX (and XeTeX) at all --
I could, if I chose, write in Microsoft Word or some equally
opaque system.  But I do not.  I choose to write in TeX
because I understand TeX, I like TeX, and I very much appreciate
the control that TeX gives me.  But when TeX (or, in this case,
XeTeX) causes problems, and will continue to cause problems for
others in the future, then I believe that it is important to
discuss (and, hopefully, resolve) those problems rather than
simply sweeping them under the counter by saying "Why not use
existing packages ?".  I do not use existing packages because
I prefer not to, just as I prefer to drive a manual car rather
than an automatic : I want to be /in control/ of the typesetting,
not dependent on someone else's work (DEK/JK excepted).