PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> prtInterpAddressability FAQ type question

PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> prtInterpAddressability FAQ type question

RE: PMP> prtInterpAddressability FAQ type question

Bob Pentecost (bpenteco@boi.hp.com)
Wed, 9 Jul 1997 15:51:42 -0600

I would also expect choice 1 (-1 other), assuming the interpreter does =
not provide for addressable positioning (all movement is character or =
line based). If partial character and partial line movements are =
permitted, then I would expect your solution 3 to be used.

Bob

----------
From: Bill Wagner[SMTP:bwagner@digprod.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 1997 3:34 PM
To: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: Re: PMP> prtInterpAddressability FAQ type question

=20
Harry,=20
=20
I suggest that this is up to the manufacturer. The obvious choice =
for=20
a formed character printer (do any exist any more) would be your=20
choice 1. However, if someone makes a printer and they regard the=20
image making capability possible by positioning formed characters =
in a=20
grid structure as a important feature, they might want to use 3.=20
=20
The intent is, after all, to describe the capabilities of the =
printer.
=20
Bill Wagner Osicom/DPI

______________________________ Reply Separator =
_________________________________
Subject: PMP> prtInterpAddressability FAQ type question
Author: Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com> at Internet
Date: 7/9/97 4:17 PM

The objects prtInterpreterFeedAddressability and
prtInterpreterXFeedAddressability should specify the MAX
addressability for the interpreter. This is fairly intuitive
for PDL's that carry image... 300, 600, 1200 etc. But, some
interpreters are completely text based with no image component.
I see three possible interpretations regarding what value to
use here.

1. Use -1 which means OTHER and places no restrictions on addressability

2. Use the finest text pitch supported by the device i.e. 15 pitch
would be 15 in units of 1/10000

3. Use the finest possible "actuation" (yes... I'm thinking along
the lines of impact printers and stepper motors here) in both
directions... with the notion that the PDL may be capable of
"overlaying" characters in very fine steps, regardless of their "pitch".

I vote for (1) above, for purely text based PDL's. However, I am
tripped up by the statement "places no restriction". I'm not sure
what that is trying to say.

I think at least one vendor, in the bake-off, used 10 for a language
called SimpleText. So I think they favored (2) above.

Any comment?

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems