At 13:50 1998-11-25 +0000, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
>> > > - Guidelines for including graphics (psfrag???)
>> >aaargh! and you expect me to translate your psfrag stuff to XML???
>> Indeed. You may need to get away from all such specialized hacks from
>> the TeX world (and there are many when it comes to graphics) and
>> focus on standard formats like EPS (for `vector graphics')
>psfrag is an eps-patcher (allows you to match fonts between the figure
>and the surrounding body text).
I know. Which is much better done by using the correct fonts when creating
the EPS file in the first place. It is an example what I overheard Sebastian once
call a `ghetto solution' (unless I misinterpreted what he meant by that).
>> and TIFF (for images).
>tiff isn't the only image standard, now that iso has put its stamp of
>approval on png... (there's also ipi/iif, but that's rather ott for
>simple image inclusion. and i don't know of any implementations...)
I have a book that lists over a hundred formats, and I am sure there
are more. But if you go to service bureaus, what you see is PS, and
EPS and TIFF for figures. Those are widely supported. TIFF because
it is a flexible powerful format for images while many others
(like BMP, GIF, JPG etc.) only implement subsets of the capability.
But actually my point was not TIFF versus PNG or whatever, but
some widely used standard format versus PicTeX, PSFrag, PsTricks,
MetaFont for images rather than fonts, MetaPost, etc. etc. Of course,
you can finesse the issue to some extend by saying that your interface
to the rest of the world is PDF (or PS) and they shouldn't care just how
you produced that. But I think this runs counter to many applications
for document material.
>> In the TeX world we have a habit of digging ourselves into
>> holes from which it is hard to extricate ourselves. Not sure why, but
>> the `not invented here' syndrome may play a role in it.
>i don't think that's really reasonable. some formats were designed
>for use with tex in the early years, but i find their use increasingly
>rare, now that more widely-available techniques have largely been
>integrated into tex.
Glad to hear it :-)
Y&Y, Inc. mailto:[log in to unmask] http://www.YandY.com