Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!intercon!news From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript Subject: Re: Compiled PostScript Message-ID: <1701@intercon.com> Date: 10 Jan 90 00:09:40 GMT References: <1666@intercon.com> <1690@intercon.com> <17601@rpp386.cactus.org> <1698@intercon.com> <1990Jan9.191937.14208@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: news@intercon.com Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Lines: 19 In article <1990Jan9.191937.14208@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes: > TRUE device independence probably starts at some number of dots > per inch greater than 1200. It is impossible to get really good > results at 300 d.p.i. without designing for that. Quite true; I realized I left that out after I posted my article. Nobody's perfect :-). PostScript does have perfectly documented ways to discover device resolution and printing area boundaries (it even includes primitives for transforming into and out of device coordinates), without having to stoop to the lengths Woody advocates. The single thing I can think of which has no documented way to be discovered is pixel shape (write- white vs. write-black, for example, or elliptical pixels on a laser recorder). This seems more of an oversight than a design flaw, though. --Amanda --