From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu, john@cs.york.ac.uk From: "John A. Murdie" Message-Id: Subject: [9fans] Re: psutils et al Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:28:08 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 66150aee-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 nemo@gsyc.escet.urjc.es wrote: >:john@cs.york.ac.uk wrote >: PostScript comments, by the way; a common misbelief. It's >: not really the psutils author's fault that the psutils would >: require to use a PostScript program analyser to detect bad input, >: and even more effort to process non-conforming PostScript correctly. >: He had the option of doing nothing, or making the best of a bad >: job and writing something that worked most of the time. > >I'm sorry. I didn't want to say that the author did a bad job, >I was only trying to say that it was mpage the one who did the job for >me. No need to be sorry; I didn't take what you said that way. I'm surprised that mpage worked for you; as far as I know its approach is effectively the same as that of psnup, which is inadequate with non-DSC PostScript. I stand by my view that PostScript is not suitable for generic postprocessing. John A. Murdie Department of Computer Science University of York England