Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #2379 > unrolled thread

prophecy from Camelot

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.postscript

Contents

  prophecy from Camelot luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-17 22:49 -0800
    Re: prophecy from Camelot Martin Leese <please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID> - 2015-11-18 12:43 -0700
      Re: prophecy from Camelot tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-11-18 17:33 -0500
        Re: prophecy from Camelot luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-18 23:06 -0800
    Re: prophecy from Camelot tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-11-18 17:22 -0500
    Re: prophecy from Camelot Markus Triska <triska@metalevel.at> - 2015-12-02 20:02 +0100
    Re: prophecy from Camelot jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 07:45 -0800
    Re: prophecy from Camelot Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:02 -0700

#2379 — prophecy from Camelot

 The Display PostScript and PostScript solutions are the correct long-term solution as the power of machines increases over time

John Warnock

http://www.planetpdf.com/planetpdf/pdfs/warnock_camelot.pdf

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2380

luser- -droog wrote:

>  The Display PostScript and PostScript solutions are the correct long-term solution as the power of machines increases over time

Unfortunately, that is not enough.  Betamax
anyone?

> http://www.planetpdf.com/planetpdf/pdfs/warnock_camelot.pdf

The Document Properties state that this file
was created in 1995, and last modified in
2004.  While not quite dead, it is
not-at-all well.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Leese
E-mail: please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2383

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:43:47 -0700, Martin Leese wrote:

> ... created in 1995, and last modified in
> 2004.  While not quite dead, it is
> not-at-all well. ...

Or, perhaps, as relevant now as then, no further updating needed.

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2384

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:33:36 PM UTC-6, tlvp wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:43:47 -0700, Martin Leese wrote:
> 
> > ... created in 1995, and last modified in
> > 2004.  While not quite dead, it is
> > not-at-all well. ...
> 
> Or, perhaps, as relevant now as then, no further updating needed.
> 

Sadly, perhaps so. But this is a historical document according to 
Wikipedia. It's the concept of the Acrobat product, Adobe's "phase two". 

So in a real sense it is correct that it has not been edited recently
and ought not to have been.

But I wish I could read more about this IPS and how it evolved into
pdf 1.0.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2382

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:49:45 -0800 (PST), luser- -droog wrote:

>  The Display PostScript and PostScript solutions are the correct long-term solution as the power of machines increases over time
> 
> John Warnock
> 
> http://www.planetpdf.com/planetpdf/pdfs/warnock_camelot.pdf

The simple "rebinding" example the 10-gon file illustrates is fascinating!

Thanks for that link. Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2391

luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> writes:

>  The Display PostScript and PostScript solutions are the correct
> long-term solution as the power of machines increases over time

Thank you for sharing this! This about sums it up.

All the best,
Markus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2407

Those interested in early PDF might want to see a thread from March 1989: 
http://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.postscript/DGDOrn5b8D4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2602

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:49:45 PM UTC+13, luser- -droog wrote:
> The Display PostScript and PostScript solutions are the correct long-term solution as the power of machines increases over time
> 
> John Warnock
> 
> http://www.planetpdf.com/planetpdf/pdfs/warnock_camelot.pdf

Sounds like the beginnings of what became PDF: get rid of all the programming baggage, and just keep the graphics model.

PostScript made some sense back when desktop PCs were a lot less powerful. But there was always this fundamental mismatch between the desktop graphics model and the printer graphics model, leading to inconsistencies in rendering. Not to mention the endless opportunities for font corruption and other weird stuffups causing your print jobs to fail.

Display PostScript tried to solve this by imposing the PostScript graphics model on the desktop. That failed.

After several years, I came to the conclusion that the best printer is a dumb printer. All the complex rendering, font handling etc happens on the PC, and the printer just prints a bitmap. That is the least troublesome model--concentrate the complexity at one end of the system, rather than trying to distribute it across both ends.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.postscript

csiph-web