[XeTeX] xdv2pdf vs xdvipdfmx

[Jjgod Jiang]

Hi Oleg,

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Oleg Parashchenko <olpa at uucode.com> wrote:
>> If I had to guess I would say that xdv2pdf is dead and there will be no
>> more work done on it.
>
> Pity. Any ideas why it has happended? Does xdv2pdf have some fatal flaws,
> or does it a normal produciton-quality driver, which just lost competition
> to xdvipdfmx?
>
> For my work, the use of MAC OS X PDF-generation API is an important
> feature, which I'd like to try to use. But first, I want to be sure that
> I'm not betting on a wrong horse.

I think Jonathan has explained it a few times on this list:

- xdv2pdf was originally designed to support AAT fonts and Mac OS X specific
  features, but even Apple has started dropping AAT fonts in Mac OS X and
  support OpenType, so it makes less sense to continue developing xdv2pdf

- XeTeX leverages ICU/FreeType to handle OpenType font loading and layout
  on all platforms, using xdvipdfmx will make sure the PDF output step is
  unified with other platforms, otherwise xdv2pdf has to be extended to
  support ICU/FreeType

- xdv2pdf generates larger and more redundant PDF files, while the output
  of xdvipdfmx is smaller and more compact (AFAIK, it's the best PDF driver
  in TeX world, even better than pdfTeX)

- Most xdv2pdf specific features like graphics inclusion are well handled
  in xdvipdfmx now.

To summarize, the only reason to continue using xdv2pdf is probably when
you have to use AAT fonts.

- Jiang