🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6675@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> bjones@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Brad Jones) writes:
+ In the strict theorectical sense, yes.  But I think this discussion
+ has become too esoteric.  Some of us have very practical, real-world,
+ needs for Postscript-to-bitmap conversion.  I have a plotting program
+ that writes Postscript code.  I plot my data, and print the plots on a
+ PS printer.  When I need to make presentation graphics for a
+ scientific meeting, I use Framemaker.  Framemaker doesn't interpret
+ Postscript but it will import bitmaps from encapsulated Postscript.
+ If I have such a bitmap, Framemaker will display the graphic image so
+ I can add a label, etc.  Since I use the PS printer to print the end
+ result, I'm not taking anything from Adobe, but they could sure help
+ me by making this mechanism available.

Brad, FrameMaker will import the PostScript code directly, which will
give you much better results than if you try to paste in the bitmap.
If you run Frame on a NeXT machine, you can just "Import" the PostScript
code, and it will be drawn on your screen by the on-board interpreter.
(It may need to be a valid EPSF file, with %%BoundingBox, actually).
If you run Frame on a Sun or an Apollo, you'll have to create a text
rectangle, paste the PostScript code into it, then grab the textrect
and flag it as "Printer Code".  Then, when you print from Frame, it will
just include the PostScript plot file right in the middle of the PS code
that Frame generates.

I haven't used Frame for a while on a non-NeXT machine, so I can't remember
precisely how to do it.  If it's not obvious, call Frame, they'll tell you.

Most publishing applications make some provision for pasting PostScript
graphics into the document, and then including the PostScript when the
whole document is sent to the printer.  That's what "Encapsulated PostScript"
is all about.  It's better than getting the bitmap and pasting that in.

Glenn Reid