faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: What I would like to see
by Vajsravana on Tuesday 24/Jun/2003, @06:53
|
> There are two possibilities:
>
> 1. The text is represented as glyphs directly or by a name or number that reference a font (either embedded or not embedded).
>
> 2. The text is a graphical representation.
What I meant to say is that, although not common, there are programs which generate postscript as pure vector graphics, keeping the glyphs as vector shapes and discarding the character and the font map that originates the glyphs (you can call it "graphical representation", but this is often used for bitmaps).
You can see a good example of these files if you use hylafax via WHFC and analyse the PS output of various win32 programs... the difference between similar documents printed in slightly different ways is sometimes amusing.
Of course, even if the result is similar when printed or viewed, there is no means of reimporting as text this kind of (otherwise perfectly legitimate) files, but only as a useless vector image.
This discards the idea of using PS as a standard archiving format, at least if you don't limit to programs that generates it "correctly".
> Obviously, if it is #1 then the information can be imported as text, and if it is #2 then it can only be imported as a graphic.
As you know, "as graphic" or "not at all" has exactly the same meaning in this context.
> Since you are a PostScript expert, I don't need to tell you that even if the text can not be extracted with: "ps2ascii", the PS file may still be #1.
>[...]
I usually don't use ps2ascii at all, I know very well how many problems it has, and I too skip directly to PDF instead, when I can.
> Is it magic?? Or, perhaps you don't know what you are talking about. 8-D
Or perhaps you did not even try to understand what I was talking about. :) |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: What I would like to see
by James Richard Tyrer on Tuesday 24/Jun/2003, @10:24
|
> ... although not common, there are programs which generate postscript as pure vector graphics
So, if it is: "not common" it isn't really relevant to the question, is it?
> This discards the idea of using PS as a standard archiving format.
I didn't say that it should be used as a "standard archiving format", I have, and do, suggest that PDF be uses as a standard format. However, this does not mean that it would not be useful to be able to import PS files directly into your WordProcessor without having to convert them to EPS or PDF first.
> As you know, "as graphic" or "not at all" has exactly the same meaning in this context.
Well, importing them "as graphic" isn't going to get you the text, but this feature -- which is already somewhat available on WordPerfect (it requires EPS) -- still has its uses.
> Or perhaps you did not even try to understand what I was talking about. :)
Yes I did, but I could not tell if you were only talking about PS files that are totally graphic images or the PS files that appear not to contain text when they actually do.
Now that I fully understand, I can state that your reasoning is flawed. Your assertion appears to be that in some (not common) instances you will find a PS file that represents text as a graphic image and that, therefore, the ability to import PS (as text) into a WordProcessor is not a useful feature.
This is to say that because it won't always work that there is no point in having it. This is illogical -- backwards reasoning.
--
JRT
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
