[Desktop_printing] Agenda proposal: Replace PostScript by PDF
asjob transfer format
Ralph Giles
giles at ghostscript.com
Mon Jan 9 16:01:57 PST 2006
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 03:00:32PM -0800, Bastian, Waldo wrote:
> So far the case for PDF seems to be rooted in a vague notion that xpdf
> is better maintained than ghostscript.
I don't think this is a good way to state the case. As a Postscript
interpreter and rasterizer, Ghostscript is *extremely* mature, and
Adobe is not longer updating the Postscript specification, so there is
little actual need for code updates. As you suggest, I think the
argument is actually in the other direction from a security and code
stability point of view.
But if we were happy with code stability, we'd still be using lpr. :)
No, I think the case for migrating the print workflow to PDF rests
entirely on its features. In my view, the most important aspects of
this are:
a) better colour accuracy, especially with deep images and ICC profile
support. This is essential for graphic arts work, and helpful for
just printing people's digital photos.
b) native support for transparency, which greatly improves both file
size and scalability with resolution over Postscript for transparent
sources. Vector graphics with transparency are coming into
increasing artistic use and it is important to support them well.
c) portability. PDF is designed as a portable format much more than
Postscript is/was and that makes it a more natural format for
applications and drawing libraries to produce, and one of the
major document formats users will want to print. Very, very
few new users are working with Postscript files directly.
That's why we at Ghostscript believe it's important to switch, despite
the pain of new code and chasing Adobe's updates to the standard.
FWIW,
-r
More information about the Printing-summit
mailing list