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.)