From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: psutils et al
From: nemo@gsyc.escet.urjc.es
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20010215113313.D0D7419A05@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:47:01 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 66096ffe-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

:  I'm sad to see these consequences of bad design decisions attempting
:  to invade Plan 9. (I hope and believe the Plan 9 devotees won't let it
:  happen.) PostScript is too low a level to be carrying out *everyday*
:  page transformations; it's just too flexible a language. I think
:  that such page transformations should be done at a higher level of
:  document description. On Unix and Plan 9, I'd say that was probably
:  at the ditroff output level. ditnup, ditselect, dittodit etc, anyone?
:  In one way, Microsoft had the right idea (if not the right implementation)
:  with their device-independent DGI page description interface, though
:  the recent GDI Plus has made this more complex.

The problem is when you got some ps from powerpoint and you don't
have to use it. Although I try hard not to fall into it, this time
I had to do it. So, although it may not be the right way, I think it's
still useful to be able to do such kind of things to the postscript.