Philip Taylor wrote :
Well, perhaps I spoke too soon. Having commented out the x:rulecolor specials
and left in thecolor equivalents, I now see in the transcript :
[snip]
xdvipdfmx:warning: Interpreting special command push (color) failed.
xdvipdfmx:warning: >> at page="1" position="(280.364, -23.9104)" (in PDF)
xdvipdfmx:warning: >> xxx "color push"
xdvipdfmx:warning: Color stack underflow. Just ignore.
To answer my own question — as \special {x: <whatever>} is not supported by the
"xdvipdfmx" driver , I used the alternative syntax suggested by Jonathan in the 2005
paper previously cited, where he writes :
The xdv2pdf driver also supports a set of color \specials based on those
used in drivers such as dvips and dvipdfm. These begin with the keyword color,
followed by any of a number of color commands:
\special {color push}
\special {color pop}
\special {color rgb R G B}
\special {color cmyk CMY K}
\special {color hls H L S}
However, it would seem that while the "xdv2pdf" driver was happy with \special {color push}, the
"xdvipdfmx" driver is not. It appears to require \special {color push <color>} (e.g., \special {color push
cmyk 0.17 0.18 0.79 0.0}), and with that change there are no longer any diagnostics referring to colour. Clearly Jonathan's
paper was written some 15 years ago — what is the recommended source of information today on the set of colour specials
accepted by the "xdvipdfmx" driver ? "TeXdoc xdvipdfmx" returns what I had thought would be the
definitive reference, but whilst this makes /mention/ of support for colour \specials, it nowhere defines them, nor (as far
as I can see) does it define where they /are/ defined.
/Philip Taylor/
