[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Enscript and unicode, was Re: is a2ps broken?

Quoting Vincent Lefevre (vincent@vinc17.net):
> On 2015-09-16 14:01:40 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > It doesn't crash, and the frames you have specified don't get bumped
> > into AFAICT, but a test line of unicode with:
> > 
> > Pound £ Euro € Divide ÷
> > 
> > gives me:
> > 
> > Pound £ Euro â\202¬ Divide ÷
> > 
> > There'a a good testpage to try at
> > http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/examples/UTF-8-demo.txt
> And FYI, the bug report (more than 11 years ago!):
>   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=229595
> For printing, I'm using paps as a replacement for a2ps. But this is
> mainly for printing, as contrary to a2ps, paps does not generate text
> in the PostScript output (it converts the text with pango).

I found a2ps very useful when I used to print at work quite a lot (on
shared printers). By the time it became unusable for me (IIRC around
the time of etch when Debian used TeX Live, and TeX Live was fully
unicode aware) I was retired and not printing text files/emails.
I didn't bother to look at enscript as it was known to suffer the same
way as a2ps; paps suffices nowadays: it appears to be able to print
more glyphs than any of my screen fonts can display.

The OP thanked me for my first post which suggested what might cause
problems in a2ps, but AFAICT gave no feedback on whether it was any
help. Presumably not, hence his move to enscript.

He appears not to be interested in unicode ("Fooey on unicode, then.")
but my second post was provoked only by his assertion that "enscript
handles unicode." I took the trouble to install enscript and check
this out, as reported above, but have no interest in continuing to use
it myself.


Reply to: