"Don Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I simply don't see how the OS could generate the PS output, or for that
> matter the bitmaps needed for non-PS printing.
Well, that's what a printer DRIVER is for. The OS already does do some of that. And
the OS is exactly the place it should be done. What's the point of every application
having to understand every possible printer that has and might ever exist? It's just
not feasible.
Incidentally, non-PS printing doesn't need to use bitmaps any more than PS printing
does.
> Only the browser knows where each letter and each image is on the web
> page, and the size of each image, and the fonts used. That is the
> information to be sent to the printer, using a series of simple
> commands. What can the OS do here?
Translate it into the language that the printer understands.
It has to do that on some level, anyway, even if it's only sending a series of
electrical pulses out on the right piece of hardware.
> Do you expect the OS to convert HTML direct to PostScript? It could if
No, absolutely not. The browser is the only thing that understands and needs to
understand PS.
> it had its own HTML engine, like IE in Windows. Are you suggesting that
IE is not Windows. IE is to the Windows OS exactly as Voyager is to the Amiga OS.
> AWeb should be set up in the OS to lay out the HTML and print to
> PostScript? Then Voyager could just collect the files and pass them on
> to AWeb.
I don't follow you there - what does AWeb have to do with this? It's another browser,
so what's the relevance??
> I think HTML-to-Postscript conversion is the job of the browser. DTP
> programs make their own Postscript code. So should a browser, which has
> a much simpler problem.
A much simpler problem? How so? DTP programs already define page layout. Web browsers
don't. The whole point of a web browser is to show things onscreen. The whole point of
DTP software is to allow you to produce printed output.
DTP programs absolutely shouldn't produce their own postscript output. If they do
this, they do it because they have no alternative. That doesn't mean that's how it
should be. Windows DTP applications certainly don't do that.
> As for your last argument, several people have already said that they
> use Postscript printers. Is Amiga software to be dumbed down to the
> level of the most badly equipped users? Is the Amiga a toy computer, or
> just a games machine? IMO Postscript output is a basic function in any
> serious computer and software.
That's completely missing the point. I don't even see why you think this has anything
to do with dumbing down. For a start, you're using your own value judgement, it
appears - there's nothing inherently better about a postscript printer than, say, a
PCL printer. And PCL printers are MUCH more common than postscript printers. You could
just as well argue that the browser MUST include code for PCL printers. And where do
you stop?
Regardless of the fact that you are overstating the importance of and discriminating
in favour of postscript, you're missing the point. It's printer *drivers* (part of the
OS) that should handle the language. All the browser should do is speak to the driver.
You obviously CAN write apps to speak particular languages and dialects but it just
isn't sensible and certainly shouldn't be expected.
Rob
_____________________________________________________________________
Voyager Mailing List - http://v3.vapor.com/
Voyager FAQ....: http://faq.vapor.com/voyager/
Listserver Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=HELP
Unsubscribe....: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=UNSUBSCRIBE
