libkdeprint

[Kurt Pfeifle]

Hans Meine wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2007 16:38:29 schrieb Kurt Pfeifle:
>> Hans Meine wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2007 16:23:01 schrieb Kurt Pfeifle:
>>>> Which features are you talking about, exactly? Must be features
>>>> like better color management, support for transparency and better
>>>> font handling (my guess).
>>> No, it's about platform-independence.
>> No, platform-independence is a 2nd, unrelated argument in favor
>> of changing KDEPrint's design.
> 
> Why do you think so?
> 
>> My question asking for the features Thomas had in mind came from
>> this statement of him:
>>
>>    "due to my 10 years of experience in the field and I know for
>>     a fact that producing a postscript file is entirely unhelpful
>>     for Windows printers, for Macintosh printers
> 
> Note that he used platform-indepence as his first argument
> 
>>     and
> 
> Note the "and"!
> 
>>     for applica-  
>>     tions that want to use features that are not supported in
>>     postscript."
> 
> This is the second(ary) argument, which does not play the main role ATM (but 
> might in the future).

No doubt about that, for KWord2's ambitions to create rocking and
nice looking WYSIWYG printouts, it is definitely not an option to
rely on PostScript Level 1 like it did with Qt3. Even PostScript
Level 3 may not be sufficient (and hard to implement, if Qt does
not support it natively). No doubt, that PDF output is the best
choice for KWord (and probabably the easiest to maintain, given
all the goodness one hears about Qt4 about that). So no doubt, this
consideration does play a major role for all current coding. And
I support that, why should I oppose it?

*IF* this were only a secondary argument (and not just a cryptic way
to pose it), then the primary argument as you see it should be able
to stand on its own feet. Either like this:

   "due to my 10 years of experience in the field and I know for
    a fact that producing a postscript file is entirely unhelpful
    for Windows printers, for Macintosh printers and for applica-
    tions."

or like this:

   "due to my 10 years of experience in the field and I know for
    a fact that producing a postscript file is entirely unhelpful
    for Windows printers, for Macintosh printers."

But delivered like this, it makes no sense, and is false. Many
Windows and Mac printers can work directly with PostScript without
being "entirely useless". *All* Windows and Mac printers can work
with PostScript via the respective printer driver, also without
being "entirely useless".

For me, the second part of the sentence,

   "applications want to use features not supported in postscript"

is the main thing. In any case, it is the part that my question was
about, main thing or not....

I parsed this statement differently from you. Which is another reason
to ask for clarification (but I guess will be ignored again).

-- 
Kurt Pfeifle
System & Network Printing Consultant ---- Linux/Unix/Windows/Samba/CUPS
Infotec Deutschland GmbH  .....................  Hedelfinger Strasse 58
A RICOH Company  ...........................  D-70327 Stuttgart/Germany