UPD Mail Archive: UPD> command sequences

UPD Mail Archive: UPD> command sequences

UPD> command sequences

From: Norbert Schade (nschade@xionics.com)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2000 - 16:23:42 EST

  • Next message: Norbert Schade: "UPD> further input to font handling"

    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?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 16 2000 - 10:24:18 EST