Re: An Idea...
- From: Kent Schumacher <kent structural-wood com>
- To: gnome-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: An Idea...
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:48:50 -0600
Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote:
> (Ghostscript does support ppd files. Just take a look at
> /usr/share/ghostscript/[version]/doc. Idem for printer resolutions
> such as 600x600)
>
> After reading a few mails on that subject, I guess that a clean and
> consistent way to do all those things would be to create an abstraction
> between the actual printing format and the applications. Such as the one
> windows use (GDI is used for both printing and displaying on screen).
> gnome-print could create postscript code without the apps developers to
> worry about it.
>
> For what the drivers are concerned, I still think ghostscript should be
> used for the non-postscript printers. As it includes already a lot of
> good drivers, the missing features such as "econofast" could easily be
> added to the existing drivers. For example the Epson Stylus driver in gs
> contains code to manage "MicroWeave technology" of those printers...
> Ghostscript is GNU software and so it could and should be enhanced in
> the same philosophy.
>
> Gnome-print would then be used as a abstraction medium.
> What do you think?
>
> W
I think this is exactly right - gnome-print can address the issue of gnome
programs providing easy output. Initially I would hope we would have
a robust postscript output capability that fully utilized the capability of
individual printers.
When there is a linux printer api that is supported by printer manufacturers
the abstraction layer for gnome_print can be built to support this api.
In the meantime, it seems to me that 90% of all linux/unix programs output
postscript, and it would benefit everyone if we could make postscript work
better.
There is a very complete document about ppd files on www.adobe.com -
search for 5003.PPD_Spec_v4.3.pdf. This looks like a robust, well documented,
standard(!) way to support printer specific functionality.
I'm starting to feel preachy, and I think that it is because I am nervous that
we are heading toward every application or set of applications needing
a print configuration utility (which is what we have now, and it is a nightmare
to administer).
OK, I need to go walk in some snow...
Kent
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]