Re: Mozilla/Firefox "PostScript/default" security problems
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:19:14 -0600
"Jamin W. Collins" <jcollins@asgardsrealm.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:15:36PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Direct printing works for some people, and for others it doesn't.
> > XPrint works for some people, and for others it doesn't.
Other than someone on PPC there haven't been any problem descriptions so I
don't see how you arrived at this conclusion.
> XPrint is
> > *not* an arguably superior product, so why is that choice forced on
> > people?
Xprint output is far suprior to PostScript/default. It just requires extra
setup. The PostScript/default printer traverses the document tree and
generates output that ultimately does not look exactly like what is
displayed in the browser window. Xprint translates X protocol drawing
operations into PostScript drawing operations. Thus you get exactly what you
see. This is actually the only way to print certain things like Unicode
fonts, MathML, etc and is just a better technique. Granted it's not ideal
because it needs X. It would have been better if the Mozilla folks had the
forethought to abstract the display device so that a primative drawing
operation would work equally well with a printer device as it did with a
video device but permit the device implementation to override or add to the
output. Unfortunately that didn't happen but Xprint is still closer to the
ideal solution.
> Direct print is the only way I can get reliable output here (I have both
> options). Almost every time I use Xprint the last part of a line is
> missing between pages. I haven't been able to locate a cause for this.
Is your paper definition correct? If it is set as A4 or something other than
Letter that might account for the incorrect size.
Mike
--
Greedo shoots first? Not in my Star Wars.
Reply to: