Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!apple!voder!kontron!optilink!cramer
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG
Keywords: WYSIWYG
Message-ID: <588@optilink.UUCP>
Date: 22 Oct 88 23:19:36 GMT
References: <6937@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <12908@oberon.USC.EDU> <25354@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 40

In article <25354@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
> In article <6637@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> cloos@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (James H. Cloos Jr.) writes:
> The content of a PostScript-driven display is not represented
> internally as a bitmap in screen resulution.  The image is maintained
> in PostScript, then interpreted when the image needs to go to the
> rendering medium.  The interpreter knows the resolution and other
> properties (e.g. color, grayscale, spot shape, spot size, inter-spot
> spacing) of the medium and applies antialiasing and other techniques
> appropriately at display time.
> 
> In the case of the NeXT machine, the interpreter knows that the screen
> has certain properties and the printer has certain other properties.
> One internal representation is sufficient to generate the image on
> either rendering engine.  Neither engine's rendering properties
> matter, nor does the ratio between the two.

So how much hassle is it going to be for someone with a NeXT machine
to connect up a 1270 dpi PostScript typesetter and make it work?  Will
the NeXT machine have enough smarts to output true PostScript without
knowledge of the rendering engine?  (I sure hope so -- or my opinion
of NeXT will tkae  a nose dive).
















-- 
Clayton E. Cramer
..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer