groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] Device-independence of intermediate output


From: Bernd Warken
Subject: Re: [Groff] Device-independence of intermediate output
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:38:58 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 02:24:24PM +0100, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> 
> But this is a problem of the postprocessor, not the
> intermediate language.  Currently the output for the
> ps device contains the line
> 
>   x res 72000 1 1
> 
> Which already contains all the necessary information, namely
> that "all the numbers in this data stream have been calculated
> assuming a reolution of 72000".

> If you want to print this data stream to a device with different
> resolution, the postprocessor must do the translation, as at
> this time it is the only one that knows the real resolution of
> the output device.

In groff, the intermediate output parser breaks if the resolutions
of the `x r' command and the one specified in the device's DESC file
differ.  It would be more efficient to implement the translation once
in the output parser instead of doing it again and again for each 
device.

> On the other hand, if you know beforehand that you want to
> print a data stream for device x on device y, why not give
> troff a device description with the correct resolution for
> device y?

Some months ago, I proposed this to Werner.  But it is impossible to
add all the old devices.  Although some names were documented, the
necessary font information surely isn't available.  I was very happy
when I realized that groff need not implement any ancient device;
instead, a suitable resolution translation could be provided to handle
all non-native or unknown devices.

> (Anyway, who archives the intermediate output?)

That's not the question.  Make it correct in order to become useful.
If groff claims to be the heir of classical troff it must implement
all of its features.

> ...5th Commandment...
> Where did you pick this up?  Last time I heard (admittedly,
> many years ago) it was still "Du sollst nicht töten", and not
> "Du sollst nicht morden".

It's in the "Einheitsübersetzung" 1983, the common edition of the
Catholic and Lutherian churches; but you should contact me privately
if you are interested in a flame war against these "satanic" 
institutions.

Bernd Warken


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]