discuss: thoughts (and more) on step 1, automation
Subject:
Re: thoughts (and more) on step 1, automation
From:
"Martin A. Brown" ####@####.####
Date:
5 Feb 2016 17:26:14 +0000
Message-Id: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1602050923300.2025@znpeba.jbaqresebt.arg>
Hello there,
>> * Does anybody object to our dropping support for PS files?
>> We would, of course, continue to supply PDF files.
>>
>> [If anybody actually cares or feels strongly that we should keep
>> supplying .PS files, it is not hard to add that....]
>
>I think ps is still very important for at least three reasons:
>1. PS is ASCII (or it can be so), which compresses well.
>2. PS is (was), the standard for printing and I, at least, have a PS
>capable printer.
>3. PS is, like pdf, all one file and some viewers keep tabs on where you
>closed it (pdf is the only other format that supports images and has
>viewers that do so (edit: djvu viewers might also)).
>4. Often times I find an error (typo), in the file and I can correct it
>in the PS doc (before reporting it and praying that the maintainer
>is listening/alive/willing to fix it), pdf does not allow this AFAIK.
OK, great. One vote for retaining .ps.
While examining our earlier publication tools, I observed that
there's a discrepancy between their mention of PostScript
generation in several places and the output tree, which has
practically no PostScript.
I'll wait for another vote or two, but it's not hard to support an
alternate output format.
Thanks for your input!
-Martin
--
Martin A. Brown
http://linux-ip.net/
