UPD Mail Archive: Re: UPD> command sequences

UPD Mail Archive: Re: UPD> command sequences

Re: UPD> command sequences

From: don@lexmark.com
Date: Thu Feb 17 2000 - 10:20:49 EST

  • Next message: don@lexmark.com: "Re: UPD> Unicode support"

    It has been my assumption all along that we would have to include these command
    sequences. There's simply no way around it. Is it time to bite the bullet and
    start this process?

    * Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
    * Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances *
    * Lexmark International *
    * 740 New Circle Rd *
    * Lexington, Ky 40550 *
    * 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *

    nschade%xionics.com@interlock.lexmark.com on 02/15/2000 04:23:42 PM

    To: upd%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com
    cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
    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?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 17 2000 - 10:27:10 EST