lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ps and pdf question


From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: ps and pdf question
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:09:14 -0800
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Macintosh/20061207)

James E. Bailey wrote:
 This would be a bad idea from my point of view, because in order to generate a pdf 
that's on a non-standard sheet of paper, I must use the postscript, so not having that 
file would make it impossible for me to generate a file that prints on, say, 
9"x12" paper.

On Friday, January 12, 2007, at 02:42PM, "Laura Conrad" <address@hidden> wrote:
   Han-Wen> No, the PDF is produced from the PS. The PS uses an
   Han-Wen> embedded CFF font that is binary data.  You'd have to
   Han-Wen> check out the Postscript standard to see what printers
   Han-Wen> can handle this.

But if we aren't going to consider it a bug when the postscript file
doesn't print, shouldn't we treat it as a temporary file and delete it
for the user instead of leaving it there?  I used to usually print the
postscript files, and I still forget and try to do it sometimes, and
it doesn't work with my current printer.

James, please do not top-post unless you are certain it is appropriate. It makes discussions like this quite confusing.

Anybody who wants to play tricks with ps files (and I am occasionally one of them) is free to invoke lilypond --ps, so this is a red herring. I agree with Laura: we should treat the .ps files are temporary and delete them. I have a script that does this automatically, but I think that deleting the .ps files is a good default option. Most users don't want ps, and many users who investigate the ps files won't know how to deal with them properly. Anybody who really wants a ps file can invoke with --ps.

Cheers,
- Graham




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]