On Sun 12 Mar 2023 at 11:50:15 -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: > Yassine Chaouche wrote: > > Le 3/12/23 à 14:18, Brian a écrit : > > > On Sun 12 Mar 2023 at 10:45:02 +0100, Yassine Chaouche wrote: > > > > > > > Le 3/9/23 à 15:33, Vincent Lefevre a écrit : > > > > > it is strange that the choice was to generate > > > > > PostScript and not PDF. > > > > > > > > Isn't postscript what printers read? > > > > > > Many (most?) printers do not understand PostScript. The > > > printing system itself is based on processing PDFs. > > > > > > > Oh. > > Times have changed! > > I thought it was the other way around. > > You are correct, Yassine. > > PostScript is an interpreted language. PDF is a compressed > archive data format which includes simplified PostScript commands, > images, fonts, and other chunks of data. > > Apart from Windows-derived GDI printers, the majority of laser > and inkjet printers have a PostScript interpreter built in, even > if its primary use is in interpreting PDF files.
Just an indication from my records for recent printers: brian@desktop-new:~/printing/txt-records$ grep "pdl=" * | wc -l 719 brian@desktop-new:~/printing/txt-records$ grep "pdl=" * | grep "application/postscript" | wc -l 187 Hardly a majority. Additionally: PostScript interpreters do not handle PDF files. PDF firmware does that.. brian@desktop-new:~/printing/txt-records$ grep "pdl=" * | grep "application/pdf" | wc -l 398 -- Brian.
