Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!dprg-330.GOVt.shearson.COM!fgreco
From: fgreco@dprg-330.GOVt.shearson.COM (Frank Greco)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: A tirade about inefficient software & systems
Message-ID: <9011061536.AA15577@islanders.>
Date: 6 Nov 90 15:36:11 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 25


> Paul Asente (asente@adobe.com) writes:
> > >... NeWS (and presumably Display PostScript) ...
> > >impose the PostScript imaging model on their clients, which may not
> > >be appropriate for some applications.
> > 
> > Not true for Display PostScript, at least as it exists on DEC and IBM boxes
> > (i.e. as an X extension...
> 
> Similar capability exists, of course, in Sun's Openwindows 2; you can create
> an XView window and render PostScript code into it, mixing XView/Xlib calls
> and PostScript calls. See ~openwin/share/xvps.ps for explanation and sample
> code.
> 

	That because the "PostScript" is being rendered by NeWS.

	And, also the problem with X extensions is that, they are...extensions,
	and not guaranteed to be available on your server.  With OpenWindows
	Postscript rendering (more properly, NeWS rendering) is guaranteed
	to be available.  This is a *much* more desirable position for 
	a developer, rather than hoping that an extension is available.


	Frank G.