> Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > > Shawn Walker wrote: > > > >> "a)" may be the safer way but is not always > necessary. Your example of > >> Postscript interpreter doesn't fit nearly as well > because you're > >> talking about (as far as I know) is an > undcoumented proprietary file > >> format, > > > > > > Not that it matters a whole lot to this discussion, > but I believe > > PostScript > > is actually rather well documented: > > > > > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201379 > 228/ > > > > > > http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/ps/index_s > pecs.html > > > This is getting a little off topic but I think the > previous message > talked about > both PostScript and PDF. PDF is fairly proprietary as > far as I know.
No, no. PDF documentation is a little better than this for PS (at my opinion). You are right in that there are some points in the implemention of PDF inside Adobe products that are not very well documented or that can not be documented (eg. because of export regulation of US government). Sometimes it's also to see: documentation comes very late after implementation in Acrobat :) But I think this is quite usual. PDF is open, Postscript is open. I believe that xpdf is the first PDF-viewer that ever run on OpenSolaris. Xpdf would not have been possible without an open PDF. -Helmar [EMAIL PROTECTED] > PostScript > however, could almost be described as an Open > Standard. > > Which by the way is something the everyone failed to > mention. In lieu of > having the source available, historically companies > and organizations have > published Open Standards to attempt ensure > compatibility among > implementations. > > ---joe > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
