ib@apolling (Ivan N. Bach) (02/28/90)
Adobe proposed last year a new use for PostScript. We are going to have a fax board which will determine whether the receiving facsimile machine is connected to a PostScript printer. It will then transmit a PostScript program instead of a bitmap over telephone lines. If we are going to have a large number of facsimile machines attached to PostScript printers, there will be a large number of transmissions of PostScript programs over telephone lines. Most of the time you will not look at the transmitted PostScript code, but you will still pay for its readability. When you get your long-distance telephone bills, you will find out exactly how much the readable format of PostScript is costing you. Maybe then you will understand why I think that PostScript interpreters should also support a binary format. Ivan N. Bach Tel (408) 986-9400, x508 QMS, Inc. Fax (408) 727-3725 2650 San Tomas Expressway arpa: ib@imagen.com Santa Clara, CA 95051 uucp: decwrl!imagen!ib
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (03/01/90)
In article <9464@imagen.UUCP> ib@apolling (Ivan N. Bach) writes: >Adobe proposed last year a new use for PostScript. We are going to have >a fax board which will determine whether the receiving facsimile machine >is connected to a PostScript printer. >Most of the time you will not look at the transmitted PostScript code, >but you will still pay for its readability. Are you implying that the postscript code will not be compressed for transmission as fax image data is? Or is there some reason to believe that another format would be more compact than compressed ascii postscript? If the application generating the code takes care to redefine the common operations to single character names, plain text postscript doesn't have to be especially bulky anyway. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us