References: <v03110702b29ab433e75a@[130.237.37.82]>
            <13938.39518.68424.927988@fell.open.ac.uk>
            <199812092035.VAA16014@na6.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de>
            <v03110702b29ab433e75a@[130.237.37.82]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID:  <v03110707b29c6917e64c@[130.237.37.111]>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199812151808.MAA19057@dcdrjh.fnal.gov>
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1998 20:35:48 +0100
From: Hans Aberg <haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: portable LaTeX
Status: R

At 12:08 -0600 1998/12/15, Randolph J. Herber wrote:
>        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.

At least in the case of Apple MacOS it is know why this is so: Apple felt
Adobe was overcharging their PS stuff, so Apple created their own
Quickdraw. My guess is that Microsoft are doing the same thing, because
they are so good at "improving on standards" as they call it. Similarly, HP
do not use PS. Etc.

This shows up as problems when one tries to print PS/PDF.

If one should avoid those problems, then one should get a PS printer.

But it seems a bad thing to tie an extension of TeX to such a commercial
product (like PS/PDF).

  Hans Aberg
                  * Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:haberg@member.ams.org>
                  * Home Page: <http://www.matematik.su.se/~haberg/>
                  * AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>