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

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

Re: PMP> prtInterpAddressability FAQ type question

Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Wed, 9 Jul 1997 19:32:18 -0400

Bill, thanks for your response. I tend to agree it should be up to the
manufacturer, and wouldn't have solicited comment, except that I find it
a bit confusing to distinguish addressibility of the PDL vs the MARKER
when the PDL is purely text based. Maybe I'm reading too much into the
description (afterall... I did get this wrong once already). But, as
you say... does anyone make a fully formed character device anymore...?
Good question, but it shouldn't matter. It's the addressability of the
*PDL*, not the device, we're after in this object (RIGHT??).

This topic probably doesn't warrant much time on the reflector, so I'll
drop it if there are no further clarifications and, as Bill suggests,
leave it up to the manufacturer, many of whom would use -1 in this case
(I believe), if they even address such PDL's at all.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

-------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 07/09/97 05:23 PM ---------

pmp-owner@pwg.org
07/09/97 04:59 PM
Please respond to pmp-owner@pwg.org @ internet

To: pmp@pwg.org @ internet
cc:
Subject: Re: PMP> prtInterpAddressability FAQ type question

Harry,

I suggest that this is up to the manufacturer. The obvious choice for
a formed character printer (do any exist any more) would be your
choice 1. However, if someone makes a printer and they regard the
image making capability possible by positioning formed characters in a
grid structure as a important feature, they might want to use 3.

The intent is, after all, to describe the capabilities of the printer.

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