Re: [Gnome-print] Quick(?) gnome-print question

[Lauris Kaplinski <lauris kaplinski com>]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Eric Sandeen wrote:

> However, I started looking at gnome-print, and I'd like to use it since it 
> seems to be a very nice way to go. I'm concerned, though, about dimensional 
> accuracy. Absolute placement on the page is not as important as relative 
> dimensions between features.  Font sizes and character spacing is the most 
> critical - I hand-coded a Type 1 MICR font to try to meet the tolerances.
> 
> So, the question : What sort of dimensional accuracy can I expect from 
> using gnome-print to render font sizes and text at a particular location on 
> the page? Better or worse than plain PostScript? I guess the answer may 
> change depending on whether the target printer is native PostScript, or 
> rendered via GhostScript...

This eventually will depend on general font support in gnome. At moment
all fonts are rendered using sub-pixel positioning (antialiasing), which
probably is not acceptable at your case. Still, I have somewhat working
font system, cabable of doing different levels of grid-fitting - currently
only for TrueType, but using FreeType2 it can hopefully handle type1 fonts
too.
Still - the result depends on more things, among other gnome-font /
gnome-print / PostScript integration. However good, gnome-print can render
accurately only for raster printers, with PostScript
(GhostScript) printers it will send fonts directly to printer and will
depend on whatever rendering present on those (printer native or
GhostScript). Doing rasterization locally does not help much for
PostScript printers, at least until there is a way to retrieve printer
exact pixel grid placement (resolution + grid origin).

Regards,
Lauris Kaplinski