[Printing-architecture] On the Continued Need for PostScript Workflows
cloos at jhcloos.com
Tue Jun 18 00:55:57 UTC 2013
>>>>> "IM" == Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com> writes:
IM> (1) PostScript filters aren't going to be maintained in CUPS in the future
IM> (as far as I know)
When I asked Michael whether cups would continue to include the pstops
filter, he replied that it would.
IM> (2) PWG IPP Everywhere (the only open standard mobile printing
IM> protocol) abandons PostScript entirely and requires PDF
IPP everywhere printers will take years to replace the existing ps
printers, as I noted. Maybe ten to twenty years from now the existing
(and about-to-be-deployed) ps printers will be gone.
IM> (3) Of the recent printers that I'm aware of, more are supporting
IM> native PDF than native PostScript
Not according to the ad copy I have read.
IM> (4) PostScript is deservedly disliked by government standards agencies
IM> around the world because of how easily it can be exploited for security
Nonetheless, if the printer is ps the job has to be submitted as ps.
IM> I agree that PostScript files won't go away, but they are being increasingly
IM> converted at the *source* content provider to PDF for interoperability.
And when they are converted at the source, that is fine.
I tried to be specific that it is *in the cups filters* that ps never
should be converted into pdf.
Don't get me wrong. I *love* ipp-everywhere. But the existing printers
do not go away overnight. And many seem to last forever.
James Cloos <cloos at jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
More information about the Printing-architecture