🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <144@heaven.woodside.ca.us>, glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn
Reid) writes:
> In the red book, it states explicitly that PostScript
> is intended for raster devices.

[flip, flip, flip]  Hmm.  You're right.  I still think the imaging model itself
is abstract enough that the fact that you're using a raster device is still
irrelevant in most cases.  Point taken, though.

> you can't really do halftoning or implement even-odd fill algorithms on a
> vinyl cutter.  At least I couldn't.

I admit that halftoning would be a bit of a problem unless you used a
really low screen frequency :-).  I don't see any problem with even-odd
fills as long as the operator peels off the right pieces, though...

> Adobe did not "prohibit" getting at the
> bitmap in the political sense, they "prevented" it in the technical sense.

True enough.

> The point that Chris Kent was trying to make, and which Woody missed, was
> that in the GENERAL sense, you cannot guarantee that the bitmap is there.

This was also part of what I was trying to say, although it seems to have
come out a little muddled.  Sigh.

> Adobe didn't implement any but very specialized, undocumented ways of
> prying the bitmap out of the printer because there are very few worthwhile
> uses for it, other than feeding to another printer of exactly the same
> characteristics, in which case you're better off with the PostScript
> stream anyway.

If I were wearing a hat, it'd be off to you, Glenn.  This is the most succinct
way of putting that I have read.

And with that, I'm out of this discussion.  Back to PostScript!

--
Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view."
	--Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi"