cplai@daisy.UUCP (Chung-Pang Lai) (08/24/89)
According to the Document Structure Spec v2.1 (also the Red Book), the
Bounding Box is defined in the statement
%%BoundingBox: llx lly urx ury
where all four values MUST be integers.
However, I have several Adobe Illustrator v1.6 documents that use floating
point number in the BoundingBox statement.
Is my document outdated? Or is it a bug in Illustrator?
If the people who designed the convention do not follow it, how much can we
count on the spec?
--
.signature under construction ...
{pyramid, osu-cis, uunet, killer}!daisy!cplai C.P. Lai
cplai%daisy.UUCP@uunet.UU.NET cplai%daisy@killer.DALLAS.TX.USA
Daisy Systems Corp, 700B Middlefield Road, Mtn View CA 94039. (415)960-6961greid@adobe.com (Glenn Reid) (08/27/89)
In article <3377@daisy.UUCP> cplai@daisy.UUCP (Chung-Pang Lai) writes:
According to the Document Structure Spec v2.1 (also the Red Book), the
Bounding Box is defined in the statement
%%BoundingBox: llx lly urx ury
where all four values MUST be integers.
However, I have several Adobe Illustrator v1.6 documents that
use floating point number in the BoundingBox statement.
Is my document outdated? Or is it a bug in Illustrator?
This is a bug in Illustrator. I'm not sure whether it's been fixed
yet, but they know about it in the Illustrator group.
If the people who designed the convention do not follow it, how much
can we count on the spec?
Unfortunately, the people who designed the convention are not the
people who wrote Illustrator. The application product teams at
Adobe are just another developer, in a sense, and they have to
interpret the specs like everybody else. That doesn't mean that
the specification should be held under suspicion, I don't think.roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/28/89)
In article <1120@adobe.UUCP> greid@adobe.COM (Glenn Reid) writes: > Unfortunately, the people who designed the convention are not the people > who wrote Illustrator. The application product teams at Adobe are just > another developer, in a sense, and they have to interpret the specs like > everybody else. Sorry Glenn, but that's a cop-out. Adobe has always seems like a pretty right-kind of company, but statements like the above really get me going. As far as the outside world is concerned, Adobe designed the convention and Adobe wrote Illustrator, i.e. they are an atomic entity. It's bad enough when vendors point fingers at each other, but when one group points a finger at another group in the same company, it just doesn't hack it. You can work out your internal lack of communication in private, pointing fingers at each other around the lunch-room table, but don't let the internal finger pointing ever show outside the company door. So, admit that it's a bug (which, if I read you right, you have already done) and send out updates to everybody who bought copies of the original program. One of the reasons I buy software from Adobe is because I have faith that if anybody can get PostScript-related stuff right, Adobe can. Don't let that faith down. Come back into the fold, Glenn. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network"
greid@adobe.com (Glenn Reid) (08/30/89)
In article <3960@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > Sorry Glenn, but that's a cop-out. Adobe has always seems like a >pretty right-kind of company, but statements like the above really get me >going. As far as the outside world is concerned, Adobe designed the >convention and Adobe wrote Illustrator, i.e. they are an atomic entity. > So, admit that it's a bug (which, if I read you right, you have >already done) and send out updates to everybody who bought copies of the >original program. One of the reasons I buy software from Adobe is because >I have faith that if anybody can get PostScript-related stuff right, Adobe >can. Don't let that faith down. Come back into the fold, Glenn. Sheesh. Here are some excerpts from the original posting and from my reply: >> However, I have several Adobe Illustrator v1.6 documents that >> use floating point number in the BoundingBox statement. >> >> Is my document outdated? Or is it a bug in Illustrator? > > This is a bug in Illustrator. I'm not sure whether it's been fixed > yet, but they know about it in the Illustrator group. You said "f I have read you right, you have already done." How many ways are there to read the sentence "This is a bug in Illustrator." >> If the people who designed the convention do not follow it, how much >> can we count on the spec? > > Unfortunately, the people who designed the convention are not the > people who wrote Illustrator. The application product teams at > Adobe are just another developer, in a sense, and they have to > interpret the specs like everybody else. That doesn't mean that > the specification should be held under suspicion, I don't think. There were two questions asked by the original poster, I think: 1. Is this a bug? [Yes] 2. Does this mean we should not trust the spec? I addressed those two questions. The reason I pointed out that there were different teams working on Illustrator and the structuring conventions is because it's true, and it contributed to the presence of the bug in Illustrator. This is the real world, guys. We acknowledge the bug, I said that I knew the Illustrator team knew about it (and were fixing it, but I didn't know the particulars). Since the original poster found problems in version 1.6 and we are currently shipping 1.8 (at least), I imagine the problem is already fixed and our customers have been shipped the updates. Either I had a bad day and it wasn't clear that my explanation was not a cop-out but an explanation of why there might be a bug in Illustrator, or you had a bad day and decided to give me a hard time about it. Sorry about my sour tone, but "statements like the above really get me going." Come back into the fold, indeed. Glenn Reid Adobe Systems
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (09/01/89)
In article <3960@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP I wrote: > Sorry Glenn, but that's a cop-out. In article <1131@adobe.UUCP> greid@adobe.COM (Glenn Reid) replied: > Either I had a bad day and it wasn't clear that my explanation was not a > cop-out but an explanation of why there might be a bug in Illustrator, or > you had a bad day and decided to give me a hard time about it. It is clear that the latter is indeed what happened. Glenn, I'm not sure why I jumped all over you like that, and I'm not sure why I did it in public. My current attitude is "computers suck", an attitude which has been fueled by a plague of undiagnosed hardware problems around here. Unfortunately, I allowed my frustration with local problems to get the better (or worse) of me and dumped on you for no good reason. Please accept my apology. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network"
greid@adobe.com (Glenn Reid) (09/03/89)
In article <3968@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > It is clear that the latter is indeed what happened. Glenn, I'm >not sure why I jumped all over you like that, and I'm not sure why I did it >in public. My current attitude is "computers suck", an attitude which has >been fueled by a plague of undiagnosed hardware problems around here. >Unfortunately, I allowed my frustration with local problems to get the >better (or worse) of me and dumped on you for no good reason. Please >accept my apology. Thanks a lot for the message. Everything's cool. And I know how one can get that attitude about computers, too :-) In any case, thanks for reporting the inconsistencies, and we'll make sure not to put any more bugs into our software. We do that every now and then just to keep people awake :-) Glenn Reid Adobe Systems