Xref: utzoo comp.lang.postscript:3277 comp.text:5645
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!fox!portal!cup.portal.com!spage
From: spage@cup.portal.com (S spage Page)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript,comp.text
Subject: Re: Bad PostScript
Message-ID: <24443@cup.portal.com>
Date: 24 Nov 89 08:59:24 GMT
References: <12877@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 29

>>  [ Need a PostScript verification/test tool. ]

I agree entirely.  I use Aldus Freehand to produce diagrams for insertion in
Word 5.0 for the PC, using IBM-format EPS as the import mechanism.  This works
fine most of the time, but every 30th diagram crashes the printer with 
savelevel problems.  Or only some of the PostScript is incorporated.  Or
nothing appears.  Naturally, each company blames the other.  I'm considering
buying another high-end package (Lotus Manuscript?) just to have a third
party to check EPS files against.

Adobe bears a lot of the responsibility for the successful use of its
files as interchange standards, and they should shoulder that burdern by
providing developers and sophisticated users with appropriate tools, test
programs and utilities.  Aldus is in a similar situation with the TIFF
spec, and you can download a package of C code and a dump program from
Compu$erve if you're having problems with TIFF.  (And boy, can you have 
problems with TIFF!)

It would help if the user community identified programs which output good
or bad PostScript.  We'll never get this information from software reviews
(can you imagine "professional" reviewers even looking at a PostScript output
file??).  Here are my two cents:
    Word 5.0 for the PC: a joke.  Uses exitserver, not conformant, no
    optimization.

    Aldus Freehand: generally excellent.  Simple, readable output.  Includes
    its whole header even if the file doesn't need all the routines.

=S Page