Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!husc6!flare!bochner
From: bochner@flare.harvard.EDU (Harry Bochner)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: PostScript to Encapsulated PostScript?
Message-ID: <3161@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 8 Jun 90 18:38:56 GMT
References: <7710@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: bochner@flare.harvard.EDU (Harry Bochner)
Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard University
Lines: 19

In article <7710@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com>,
domae@heat.nrtc.northrop.com (Terry Domae <tdomae>) writes:
|>As I understand the problem you need to somehow send your postscript to
|>a postscript engine (either a postscript laser printer or a postscript
|>interpreter), then receive the rasterized picture back from that engine.

No, this isn't the issue. The EPS standard defines a way to include a bitmap
in the comments, but this is optional, and shouldn't be required by programs
that import EPS. FrameMaker, for instance, will use the bitmap if it's
provided,
so that the user can see an approximation of the included graphics. but
if there's
no bitmap (and if there is a BoundingBox), it will still give you a rectangular
frame that you can use to position the graphics.
In other words, getting the rasterized picture is lovely if you can do it, but
it isn't necessary for the things we need EPS for.

Harry Bochner
bochner@endor.harvard.edu