Re: is xdvi broken?
On Sun 21 Apr 2019 at 02:54:05 (-0500), rlharris@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 2019.04.21 02:31, rlharris@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On 2019.04.20 19:42, David Wright wrote:
> > > So you expect that visitors can print from PDFs but you print locally
> > > with PS. Any reason?
> Kindly forgive my deficiency in the field of reading comprehension. I
> finally understand your question.
> I expect visitors to print from PDF. I think few of them would know
> what to do with a DVI file, and I think few have a Postscript printer.
Agreed, and my apologies if the sentence above made it seem that
it was an unreasonable expectation.
> However, my laser printers always have been Postscript, and someone
> long ago introduced me to the "dvips" utility.
> Inasmuch as I print many things, and I need PDF documents only for
> publication, I normally execute dvips and lpr, unless the document
> needs to be PDF.
> That seems to me more simple and more direct than routinely to produce
> PDF and then routinely to convert PDF to Postscript for printing. Am
> I misunderstanding something?
I don't think so. In general, most people will be receiving a good
proportion of documents as PDF files, and so will have their printing
system (like CUPS) set up to handle them. Since there are now LaTeX
systems like pdflatex and lualatex that produce PDF documents
directly, they have likely moved on to these systems rather than the
previously conventional .tex→DVI→PS→PDF workflow.
Do you convert PDF documents from elsewhere to PS yourself, before you
print them? For most people, this kind of function is handled
automatically by CUPS, and it will convert many other types of file as
well. So my workflow is .tex→PDF→CUPS when I bother to print it myself.