Xref: utzoo comp.lang.postscript:3274 comp.text:5633 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!shelby!polya!rokicki From: rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki) Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript,comp.text Subject: Bad PostScript Message-ID: <12877@polya.Stanford.EDU> Date: 23 Nov 89 01:46:45 GMT Followup-To: comp.lang.postscript Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 31 After seeing yet another sample of *lousy* PostScript generated by an application (this one Windows Designer), I'm very upset. This particular application makes *no* effort to comply with any structuring conventions. It even generates an unprotected call to `a4'. I get numerous bug reports---90% of the distill down to problems with the application generating the PostScript. What I propose is that Adobe (or some enlightened soul) attempt to write a `validation' program. This simple C program would read in a PostScript graphic following the structuring conventions and generate another, with the included graphic scaled and rotated to perhaps halfsize in the middle of the page. The output PostScript would also have drawn some things before and after the included graphics. And this C program would parse and check the input graphic appropriately. Then, if an Application claimed to generate `PostScript', especially for potential inclusion in other programs, its generated output should be capable of being sucessfully filtered and scaled by the above C program. This C program should be fairly simple and thus portable, and would be a tremendous boon to those attempting to support products that include PostScript images; by simply running the program above with a troublesome graphic, the fault could be quickly isolated. In addition, this C program could serve as the basis for an application's PostScript importing code, showing things done correctly. I'm sick of dealing with Adobe's poorly written and changing structuring conventions, and even more so with applications that don't make even an effort to comply. Comments or thoughts?