On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:02:19 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:06:07PM +0000, Camaleón wrote: >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:43:13 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
(...) >> > The understanding I got from reading Roger's post was that if you are >> > using CUPS, *THEN* you are automatically using "a PDF filter >> > paradigm" because it **is considered superior/"more robust"**. >> >> That's what CUPS developers seem to claim (?) but having used PS >> printers and PS backend as default for all these years, I'm a bit >> reluctant about grandiloquent wordings with no more technical proofs on >> the superiority of one on the proposed systems over the other. > > If you want technical proof, please download the specs for both from > Adobe's website and compare them. Both are freely downloadable. > http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/ps/PLRM.pdf > http://www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/pdf_reference_1-7.pdf > The wikipedia pages for both are also reasonably informative. Specifications are not a proof that describe something is better or worse "per se", pros and cons have to be analyzed separately and also based on real use-cases other than over a white paper. > The fact is, PDF *is* the continuation of PostScript. Yes, I know all that. What I wonder is whether my printer needs all of the PDF additions (my eBook reader for sure, but my printer...). > It's just an evolved form of PostScript in a binary format. Evolution is not always for good ;-) > More accurately, both formats are implementations of the "Adobe imaging > model"; until PDF 1.4, both of these formats implemented the same set > of primitives. PDF 1.4 and later implement new additions to the imaging > model, while PostScript will not see any new releases. If you look at > all the drawing primitives contained within PostScript, they are all > right there in PDF. If you take any PostScript document, you can > execute it and transform all the drawing commands to their PDF > equivalent. That's why it's trivial to to the conversion. The converse > is not always true: because PDF is a *superset* of the PostScript > drawing model, and so you potentially lose information going the other > way, because you might have to convert a single PDF primitive into > multiple PostScript primitives which only /approximate/ the PDF. And how it translates all of the above into "a PDF filter is better than PS"? I mean, I need facts, numbers, comparison tests, user-case examples... not nice wording :-) > You can read a nice overview of the history and relationship between the > two here: > http://www.prepressure.com/postscript/basics/history > > I hope from the above you'll understand that is indisputable that 1) PDF > has a more technically sophisticated imaging model Can't tell. I'm sure PDF will add some nice features but also drawbacks when it comes to printing. > 2) PDF is the de-facto standard for professional document printing It's the most compatible/easier to send file format, but the best... well, that will depend on the professional you ask ;-) Also, careful with the election of the words. MS Word's ".doc" is also a "de-facto" standard document format for office automation and we know that's just an empty statement, right? > 3) PostScript is no longer being developed, and PDF is its successor > Moving to a PDF based printing workflow is an improvement due to being > technically superior and the logical way to go. Good to know. When I have to decide the buy for a new printer I will ensure it does also support PDF directly but until that moment comes, I will still use what my printers do understand. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jvgsje$e45$1...@dough.gmane.org
