Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows
Hi.
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:37:34 +0100
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 13:12:46 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday 13 October 2015 04:57:07 rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> > > On Mon, October 12, 2015 9:16 pm, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > Use PDF instead of PS. That's the fool-proof method, and you get the
> > > > advantages of the PDF specification.
> > > >
> > > > [It's also probably time to move away from pdflatex to xelatex or
> > > > some other LaTeX engine with real utf8 support.]
> > >
> > > Thanks for bringing up the utf8 issue; I keep forgetting about it.
> > >
> > > But is the PDF file I produce with whatever is in Jessie likely to be
> > > readable by Windows XP or Vista? I ask this because I have an older HP
> > > laserjet which cannot decipher Postscript Level 3.
> >
> > Surely the whole point of .pdf is that it is an open standard which
> > is "universal"? And it has traditionally been easier to make use of from
> > Windows than from Linux.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format
>
> Try downloading this document and reading it with mupdf (or a Linux
> viewer of your choice).
>
> wget https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/373943/nrl1i.pdf
>
> There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to the
> standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)
Or, in this particular case, not all PDF viewers conform to the
standard. Embedding Javascript (or, $DEITY forbid, Flash) into PDF was
possible since PDF 1.5 IIRC, and embedded Javascript (or rather, lack
of support of) is the reason that this particular PDF should only show
meaningless "Upgrade your Acrobat Reader" page in anything other than
Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Why would anyone actually *want* Javascript and Flash support in a
*PDF* viewer is entirely different topic.
Reco
Reply to: