[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The name of the pdfmark mark
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: The name of the pdfmark mark |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:36:10 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.3i |
Hi,
@ExternalLink, @FixedWidthRule, etc. can all be used in a Lout document
regardless of which output backend is being used. Why would it be
different for @DocInfo? If @DocInfo makes sense only in the PS backend,
then its definition would just include something like:
@BackEnd @Case {
PostScript @Yield { ... }
else @Yield @Null
}
Cheers,
Ludovic.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 04:01:56PM -0700, Albert Kinderman wrote:
> I am sorry I lost the thread, so I am starting it anew.
>
> K.H. was suggesting @Mark, but thought it might be confusing.
>
> Jeff suggested @DocInfo (this is from memory).
>
> I suggested @PdfMark
>
> Jeff responded that what was needed was something more general that
> would apply equally to other backends.
>
> So let's consider another backend. Macromedia now has a Flash
> "distiller" that produces Flash movies (swf) from Word documents (it is
> installed as a printer driver in Windows), just as a pdf distiller
> produces pdf files from ps. Suppose someone wanted to create a Flash
> distiller that worked on ps output. I would guess that the ps would
> need some flashmarks in it to direct the distiller. The goal is to
> have neither the pdfmarks or the flashmarks appear on paper when the ps
> is printed, but to be "visible" as directives to the distiller.
>
> Question: would the pdf distiller choke on the flashmarks and the
> flash distiller choke on the pdfmarks?
>
> If the answer is no, then Jeff is correct that we only need a generic
> name that would cover these two distillers and any others. Authors
> could create a unified ps document with all types of embedded marks
> that would produce different types of documents depending on the
> distiller that the ps was run through.
>
> On the other hand, if a pdf distiller would choke on the flashmarks,
> then the unified document is impossible. ps intended for a pdf
> distiller could only use pdfmarks while ps intended for a flash
> distiller could only use flashmarks. In this case, using the symbol
> @PdfMark for pdfmarks intended for the pdf distiller would help keep
> the author from accidentally using the wrong type of mark. Similarly,
> using @FlashMark or @SwfMark for marks destined only for a flash
> distiller would help the author know that those were the only legal
> marks to be used.
>
> The other option is to use a form like
>
> @DocInfo
> distiller { pdf }
> type { url }
> etc
>
> so every mark would be identified by the intended distiller. This
> still wouldn't prevent the flash distiller from choking on the pdfmark
> produced, but at least the author would have a way to easily identify
> the type of distiller that each mark was intended to direct.
>
> I realize that my knowledge in this area is very limited. I am only
> looking at this from the point of view of an author using lout to
> produce a ps document that has pdfmarks in it.
>
> Al
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Albert Kinderman Systems and Operations Management
> California State University Northridge
>