Hi Branden,
> > > +o PDFPIC has been corrected so the behaviour is the same whether you use
> > > the
> > > + postscript or pdf drivers. However, this means that any documents
> > > which
> > > + were written using the old behaviour will not be rendered correctly if
> > > + using the pdf driver with the new version.
> >
> > ...that looks [odd] because it's either talking about the output
> > devices `ps', not `postscript', and `pdf', or PostScript and PDF.
> > groff tends to talk about `device driver' or `device' rather than
> > `driver'. But I [suppose] it's only `NEWS' rather than more main
> > documentation.
>
> I'm not 100% sure I understand you.
I was a bit garbled.
> 1. This item is referring in a generic way to "drivers" for the
> PostScript and PDF file formats and therefore should case them
> appropriately; or
Yes, if it's the file formats then it should be cased correctly.
> 2. This item is referring to groff's "ps" and "pdf" output devices
> (also known as arguments to the -T option) and should therefore use
> these option arguments as they would appear in a command line.
No, if it's the devices then the device is `ps', not `postscript'. I
don't think the `-T' is required.
o PDFPIC has been corrected so the behaviour is the same whether you
use the ps or pdf devices. However, this means that any documents
which were written using the old behaviour will not be rendered
correctly if using the pdf device with the new version.
o PDFPIC has been corrected so the behaviour is the same whether you
use the PostScript or PDF devices. However, this means that any
documents which were written using the old behaviour will not be
rendered correctly if using the PDF device with the new version.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy
