Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> writes:
From: Joel Reicher <joel.reic...@gmail.com>
Cc: help-emacs-windows@gnu.org
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:54:55 +1100
Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> writes:
[...]
Which parts of the doc string are inaccurate, in your opinion?
"Like the command ‘ps-spool-buffer’, but includes *font*,
color, and underline information in the generated image."
(Emphasis mine)
Wouldn't most people interpret that as the postscript
containing the same font as the buffer, and unconditionally
so?
Not me, at least. It doesn't say that the fonts and the colors
are the same as in the buffer. And frankly, I don't understand
why people would expect the font and the colors to be the same.
Why would I expect the PostScript printer to use the same fonts
I see on the screen, when the former are fonts known to the
printer (and using the resolution of the printer), whereas the
latter are fonts installed on my computer, with resolution of my
screen? Likewise with colors: why would I expect to see the
same colors if my PostScript printer is black and white?
I understand, and while I might not be able explain why "people"
would have a different expectation, the best argument for the
possibility of confusion here is that it just happened.
Thanks and regards,
- Joel
