- From: Brian Gaines <gaines@fsc.cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 17:29:26 -0600
- To: www-html@www0.cern.ch
In message <199409152129.OAA00702@rock> writes:
>
> >Adopting Acrobat as a standard for embedded graphics in HTML documents
> >may be a reasonable way to proceed. I know hardly anything about
> >Acrobat. The relevant question seems to be: How much work is it to
> >convert a program that now produces Postscript to one that produces
> >Acrobat?
>
> Acrobat files are a variation of PostScript; it should be a simple matter,
> although Adobe might be trying to control it so only their apps can write
> Acrobat files.
Just to put the record straight. Any PostScript file can be converted to
the PDF format that Acrobat uses regardless of the application producing it.
Also the PDF 'printer' driver will work with any apps going through a
standard printer driver. The PDF format is well documented and non-proprietary.
However, I would guess that one is really talking about EPS rather than
PDF for embedded material. The problem is that you looking at an interpreter
similar to ghostscript to convert the EPS to a screen bit map. That would
make clients large and clunky.
Galaxy's cross-platform GUI uses PostScript as its graphic toolbox and is
very effective so that it is certainly doable.
In terms of client architecture, it makes sense to think in terms of
embedded 'parts' under OLE II or OpenDoc where some 'helper' application
fills in a region of the display. This would make it possible to support
a wide range of embedded material in an open, extensible client
architecture.
b.
Brian Gaines Knowledge Science Institute, University of Calgary
gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/KSI/KSI.html
Received on Friday, 16 September 1994 01:26:51 UTC