Am Dienstag, dem 25.05.2021 um 12:22 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: > Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development > <[email protected]> writes: > > > Am Dienstag, dem 25.05.2021 um 09:57 +0000 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: > > > This might be of interest: > > > > > > https://ghostscript.com/pdfi.html > > > > Unless I'm completely missing the point of the page, this is about the > > *PDF interpreter*, not the Postscript interpreter that LilyPond uses to > > produce PDF files. So I don't really see how this relates... > > They are the same.
They are right now, and while PDF interpretation will diverge, the Postscript code will stay the same as far as I understand. > [...] > > But when the ultimate target is PDF (like when using the pdfwrite device > as LilyPond does), Ghostscript relies on non-standard PostScript > extensions to indicate things like bookmarks, page links, PDF metadata. > With the pressure to remove non-standard extensions from GhostScript, > those might be under considerably more pressure to change or require > specific setup code to activate. I think all of this uses the shared pdfmark operator which would be very ... interesting ... if they removed that from GhostScript. Jonas > > So we likely need to watch more closely what is happening. >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
