I sent this yesterday and it didn't make it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandra Matts [mailto:sandram@boi.hp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 12:50 PM
> To: Universal Printer Driver
> Subject: RE: UPD> command sequences
>
> For fonts I believe we can specify font sequences
> for PCL 5 and PCL 6 and it will work. However,
> for graphics commands using Raster and HP-GL/2,
> I think it will be a bit hard. I will
> have to do some prototyping (later) to see if it will
> work.
>
> For Fonts I think it is probably our only choice
> because of our tendencies to add proprietary
> escapes.
>
> Encoding escape sequences in XML may be hard. We can
> reference a binary file of escape sequences (Binary
> ENTITY) or we can use the pre-defined ISO-Latin-1
> Character set. Using the latter would mean a driver
> has to decode Esc* (1B2Ah) to the binary equivalent
> 1B2A in hex and send that to the printer. Using
> a binary entity the driver would pull the entry
> from the file and send it to the printer with
> no decoding.
>
> I would lean towards the former so that
> the driver would not have to have as much intelligence.
> Also it may be difficult to enhance binary definitions
> if we require the driver to know their meaning.
>
> Sandra Matts
>
> Sandra Matts
> Engineer Scientist
> Hewlett-Packard
> sandram@boi.hp.com
> 208-396-4755 phone
> Boise, ID 83714
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-upd@pwg.org [mailto:owner-upd@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Norbert
> Schade
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 2:24 PM
> To: UPD group
> Subject: UPD> command sequences
>
>
> The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that we need command
> sequences in the UPDF file.
> It is simply an illusion that a driver uses a certain HP model as a
> reference. I really think every clone and every port of a PDL to a
> specific
> model has its proprietary conditions and even improvements, which are not
> 100% compatible with the target HP model.
> >From my time in Germany, where we developed drivers for many different
> companies, I know that a lot of proprietary command sequences have been
> invented in the past and that there are tons of proprietary paper source,
> paper size, print media, typeface, symbol set and other parameters.
> Only very few models would work with a UPD, that anticipates the
> correctness
> of a print file.
>
> Beside the difficulties to describe binary print files - are there other
> reasons to not specify command sequences in a UPDF?
> Like marketing or policy reasons?
> In case we solve the problems to describe that technically, has any
> company
> any other problem?
> Norbert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 17 2000 - 15:34:44 EST