KDE Print porting - help needed

[Thomas Zander]

On Saturday 13 October 2007 17:09:26 Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> Supporting a PDF workflow does not necessitate to un-support a
> PostScript workflow.

I'm pretty sure that was never implied or actually said. I must be getting 
really bad at writing emails that you read that into my email.
Thanks for pointing out the misconceptions that apparently got into my 
mail; let me try to explain them here.

I wrote; 
> > This will obviously mean users that want a more professional printing
> > (aka PDF based) or want to print on Windows can't use Okular.

What I meant to state with this is that if the *user* wants a 
non-postscript workflow he can't use Okular.
Users on Windows are forced to use a non-postscript workflow since the 
windows printing system doesn't support it. I didn't make that choice, 
nobody in KDE did.  So the support for postscript is not being taken 
away, we just expand our goals and targets and our previously proven way 
of working unfortunately needs to change to be applicable to those new 
users.

So, in short, if Okular thinks its important to allow the users of 
Windows, or users that require PDF output then it needs to alter the way 
it prints.
If it doesn't care about those users, all Okular needs to do is pipe its 
output directly to Cups. Which puts it on par with what it did in KDE3

ps;
I have no intention in fighting or getting shot down so often as I have 
been on this subject.  There seem to be quite some people that think its 
fun to bash the people working on printing just because they have some 
ideas on how to do it differently. Lets please all get along and put 
treating people correctly above all. Thanks!
-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20071013/051bccd2/attachment.sig>