The following header lines retained to affect attribution:
|Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1998 08:32:20 -0500
|Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
|From: "Y&Y, Inc." <[log in to unmask]>
|Subject:      Re: portable LaTeX
|To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L

|At 09:54 AM 98/12/14 , Randolph J. Herber wrote:

|>|Does DVI have any advantages over PDF?

|>DVI ==> Device Independent

|Just naming something `device independent' does not make it so.  In fact,
|because of fonts, included figures and \special, DVI is less device
|independent than PDF.

        It has been my experience that I find it easier to convert
        a dvi file to something that I can print or display than
        most of the PDF files that I receive.

        The worse offenders in supplying defective Adobe PostScript
        language files and PDF are the applications which run on the
        Microsoft programming support systems and Apple MacOS.
        Unfortunately, the large number of point-and-ugh ``marching
        morons'' among the users of such systems do not know and
        do not seem to care what problems they create for others.

        I seldom have _major_ trouble addressing their blotched
        Adobe PostScript language files.  Their Adobe PDFs are
        almost never reparable.  When someone comes to me with
        a request that I repair a defective Adobe PDF file, I
        have to tell them to try to obtain the Adobe PostScript
        language original, when the procedure described below fails.

        Adobe PDF address the fonts issues by including scaled and
        bitmapped used character subsets of the fonts used when those
        fonts are available at the time of conversion and if the
        person making the conversion does not request that the fonts
        be omitted (the request is usually made because that ``compresses''
        the file).  Adobe PDF addresses the included figures by
        converting the images to bitmaps if converters for that
        figure type is available (otherwise, as I understand the
        famous blank label box is provided).  The result of this
        bitmapping frequently is that the full resolution  of the
        printer can not be used effectively.

        DVI was design quite effectively to be device independent
        over a much wider variety of output display types and
        printer types than Adobe PDF is designed to cover.

|>Not all displays (printers, etc.) are Adobe PostScript PDF capable.

|They don't have to be.  It is up to the OS to provide printer support.
|You print to them from Acrobat Reader.  They need not be PS devices.
|In Windows NT for example, I could print to any one of over 3,500
|different model printers - and Acrobat has very little to do with it.

        NO, it is not the job of the programming support system to
        provide printer support.  If a printer requires unusual
        programming support, then it is the job of the printer
        vendor to provide the appropriate applications level
        programs and commands to prepare the data streams the
        printer needs from such ``standard'' forms as Adobe
        PostScript language or PDF.

        Furthermore, I see no reason that DVI could not generate
        similar bitmapped images of the pages and hand those
        images to the same printer interface applications that
        Adobe Acrobat Reader uses.

|>Not all Adobe PostScript capable displays are Adobe PostScript PDF capable!

|So? You use Acrobat Reader to view the file.

I can use Acrobat Reader to produce a print datastream for my Epson FX
printer?  This is news to me; tell me how.  I can do so with DVI files.

I can use Acrobat Reader to produce a print datastream for my NEC LC890
Adobe PostScript level 1 printer?  This is news to me; tell me how.  I
can do so with DVI files; in fact, that is the majority of my printing!
In particular, tell me how to Acrobat Reader to run on my AT&T 3B1
where I run LaTeX and dvips.

|>If one remains with the almost universal Apple LaserWriter basic 13 fonts
|>and the TeX bitmapped fonts, then the files are more portable than when
|>Adobe PDF is used.

|And no included figures and no use of \special.  In other words: hardly ever.

        If the included figures are in proper (per Adobe PostScript
        PRLM) EPS format and the \special statements are compatible
        with a Adobe PostScript output (which I _assume_ is
        permittable, _in this case_, as you are comparing DVI to PDF
        which has the same requirements), then DVI is as portable as
        PDF and quite possibly more so.

|>An Adobe PDF can not be repaired readily with the
|>usual UNIX command line tools;

|Yes, if you are a PS genius and have loads of time on your hand.

        Thanks for the compliment.  Unfortunately, PDF files
        take much more time to repair than ASCII text Adobe
        PostScript files.  The most effective method is to convert
        them to Adobe PostScript level 1 language, do the repairs
        and then leave them that way.

|>most Adobe PostScript files can be repaired by such means..

|regards, Berthold Horn.

|Y&Y, Inc.  http://www.YandY.com/news.htm  mailto:[log in to unmask]

        I thought that Y&Y was heavily into supporting TeX and LaTeX
        on a variety of platforms.  Apparently, I am mistaken.

Randolph J. Herber, [log in to unmask], +1 630 840 2966, CD/CDFTF PK-149F,
Mail Stop 318, Fermilab, Kirk & Pine Rds., PO Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510-0500,
USA.  (Speaking for myself and not for US, US DOE, FNAL nor URA.)  (Product,
trade, or service marks herein belong to their respective owners.)