Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!bbn.com!drilex!dricejb
From: dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Printing on X-terminals
Message-ID: <13689@drilex.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jul 90 19:04:58 GMT
References: <670ED6F0529FC088D0@fccc.edu> <9007121725.AA21248@expire.lcs.mit.edu> <3663@auspex.auspex.com>
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA
Lines: 32

About printing on X-Terminals:

Guy Harris is right; others don't really know lpr.  The lpr protocol is
basically a spooler-to-spooler protocol, not a user-to-printer protocol,
nor a spooler-to-printer protocol.  People with things like Annex boxes
need additional software (output filters) which open up a net connection
and talk to the printer.

Point 1: The Internet community sure could use a standard spooler-to-printer
protocol.  It could then be implemented by X terminals.


However, there does seem to be a deficiency in the X regime: X provides
a useful, standard means of displaying text and graphics on a computer
screen.  However, if one wishes to render that same text and graphics
in another environment, particularly hard copy, X provides no assistance.
Duplicate sets of code are required, one to call XDrawLine, etc, and 
one to create Postscript, PCL, or whatever your printer's religion is.
On the Mac, all one needs to do is direct a graphport at the printer
instead of the screen, and Quickdraw is still the language.

Point 2: There should be some standard extension to the X windowing system
which would allow programs to use the same interface to create hardcopy
as they use to create screen images.

Note: I don't consider a screendump to be a real answer to the hardcopy
problem.  Unless your bitmaps are routinely done at 2540 bits per inch
or greater, there are hardcopy devices with more resolution.
-- 
Craig Jackson
dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com
{bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}