On Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 17:10:12 +0000, Camaleón wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:27:26 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > > > No, while PDF does perhaps allow such things, it's far far better than > > PostScript. > > (...) > > PostScript is a languge for machines not for human beings. It does not > have to be "easy" but "accurate". One only have to read the full > specification manual of both to start guessing "why" (hint: one of them > has around 200 less pages) :-) > > (note that I don't want my printer to "read" but "interpret" the document > I am sending it exactly "as is" and PS complexity is precisely for doing > so)
Roger Leigh gave a good explanation of the role played by PDF in the CUPS printing process on Debian. You snipped most of it, including this: > A native PDF workflow is far, far better and vastly more > flexible than a native PostScript workflow. To understand its importance you need a better reference than the one given to a page on the cups website a few posts back. For example, there is: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/pdfasstandardprintjobformat To illustrate the difference between printing in the olden days and now we'll take someone who has set up a print queue to send a job to a printer as PostScript. A text file is sent to CUPS, which filters it. On Lenny: text --> texttops --> pstops ----> printer On Squeeze: text --> texttopdf --> pdftopdf --> pdftops ----> printer Note that the printer still gets PostScript (which should make you happy) and the advantages of the PDF workflow which have been described occur at the pdftopdf filtering stage. -- 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/20120726222637.GB6660@desktop
