faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
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 |
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
