UPD Mail Archive: FW: UPD> command sequences

FW: UPD> command sequences

From: MATTS,SANDRA (HP-Boise,ex1) (sandra_matts@hp.com)
Date: Thu Feb 17 2000 - 15:32:24 EST

  • Next message: Sandra Matts: "RE: UPD> further input to font handling"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Sandra Matts [mailto:sandram@boi.hp.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 1:19 PM
    > To: sandra_matts@am.exch.hp.com
    > Subject: FW: UPD> command sequences
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Sandra Matts [mailto:sandram@boi.hp.com]
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 12:50 PM
    > To: Universal Printer Driver
    > Subject: RE: UPD> command sequences
    > For fonts I believe we can specify font sequences
    > for PCL 5 and PCL 6 and it will work. However,
    > for graphics commands using Raster and HP-GL/2,
    > I think it will be a bit hard. I will
    > have to do some prototyping (later) to see if it will
    > work.
    > For Fonts I think it is probably our only choice
    > because of our tendencies to add proprietary
    > escapes.
    > Encoding escape sequences in XML may be hard. We can
    > reference a binary file of escape sequences (Binary
    > ENTITY) or we can use the pre-defined ISO-Latin-1
    > Character set. Using the latter would mean a driver
    > has to decode Esc* (1B2Ah) to the binary equivalent
    > 1B2A in hex and send that to the printer. Using
    > a binary entity the driver would pull the entry
    > from the file and send it to the printer with
    > no decoding.
    > I would lean towards the former so that
    > the driver would not have to have as much intelligence.
    > Also it may be difficult to enhance binary definitions
    > if we require the driver to know their meaning.
    > Sandra Matts
    > Sandra Matts
    > Engineer Scientist
    > Hewlett-Packard
    > sandram@boi.hp.com
    > 208-396-4755 phone
    > Boise, ID 83714
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-upd@pwg.org [mailto:owner-upd@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Norbert
    > Schade
    > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 2:24 PM
    > To: UPD group
    > 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?
    > Norbert

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 17 2000 - 15:37:25 EST