RE: [XaraXtreme-dev] Printing on Linux

[John Tytgat <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message <5056CBC646CB4047BB26120F4377DB71D70DC8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          "Charles Moir" <CharlesM@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Interesting. So basically you're saying we can rely on doing only Postscript printing because Ghostscript is standard and provides a means of printing PS to any old printer?
> 
> If that's the case, you're in effect saying PS is the Linux printing standard, then sure we should rely on PS printing, and forget about any other method. Doesn't make any sense to do it any other way.
> 
> But I'd note:
> A) Our PS output very out of date. E.g. we don't output any grad fills at all. Everything is stripped in Camelot (and I'd expect to see evidence of this e.g. Moiré patterns or at least banding, in almost all fills if you looked closely enough). It's crude. Very slow and very out of date.
> 
> B) I'm not at all sure you can assume Ghostscript is not broken. We had a real tough time getting Ghostscript to render Xara PDF 1.5 files. I recall that that it does not support transparency or masking correctly, possibly more.
> 
> I suggest try printing some Xara PDF 1.5 files that contain real vector grad fills and vector grad transparency and see if you can get that to either view or print correctly.

Apart from the smooth shadings, won't Xara's transparency features
not cause various issues when printing via PostScript is done (unless
you fallback on the giant bitmap printing approach) ?

John.
-- 
John Tytgat                                                             BASS
John@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                           ARM powered, RISC OS driven