---- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Little" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 7:37 PM
Subject: [voyager] Re: printing
>
>
> "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.
With the exception of pen plotters, all printing is bitmap printing. The
biggest difference is where does the vector data get rasterized. With PS
printers, all vector data is rasterized in the PS engine of the printer.
Same thing basically goes for PCL, as it is basically another meta format.
However nearly all inkjets and some (GDI) lasers are "spoon-fed" thier
bitmap data by the printer driver. All rasterization takes place in the
computer.
> > 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.
I think the layout engine of a browser is quite a bit more similar to the
layout engine of a DTP program than you make out. The only difference is
the browser usually outputs to screen, and the DTP progam usually outputs to
print, however the DTP program (assuming WYSIWYG) has to do nearly the same
thing in laying out a combination of vector (font) and raster data in the
proper way on the screen.
> 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.
Actually many do. It is a very usefull page description language, and an
EPS or AI export will typically go to a printer, as easily as a DTP or
illustration program with the proper import filters. Most Adobe software
will output PS directly for simple transport to a bureau. Simply add in the
proper PPD files, and no Windows Print system intervention is required. As
has been demonstrated here, PS is fairly easy to produce and can be a
wonderful thing for getting output just the way you want it.
> > 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?
There is a LOT inherently better about a PS printer than there is about a
PCL printer. True they are both common, but when was the last time you saw
a print shop accepting PCL dumps for professional printing? PCL comes in a
dozen different flavors, but Postscript is Postscript. All you basically
need to know is that your printer can handle level 1, 2 or 3 files, and you
are there. PCL also does not have any potential to be rasterized by
anything other than the printer's engine AFAIK, making it a less open ended
proposition. That would be a sufficient reason in my mind to make PS a
viable option when compared to the amiga's limited printer interface, also
making PCL output direct from any program not even a consideration.
> 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.
Generally, I'd have to agree with you, but I think in the case of printing
and all it's up's and downs, it's accptable to have PS generation play a
sort of a "middleware" role, with an interpreter like Ghostscript providing
the rasterization for bitmapped devices, and most lasers accepting the
output directly.
I wouldn't say that the importance of PS was being overstated, as much as it
was an attempt to point out the potential *usefulness* of PS as either a
direct driver or a middleware solution. I have to believe that much of the
work a browser does in page layout is quite similar to the generation of a
PS dump.
Chris
_____________________________________________________________________
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
