Re: [PATCH] Disable PDF docinfo output for EPS

[<lud...@la...>]

Hi,

Ethan Merritt <merritt@u.washington.edu> writes:

> On Tuesday 09 October 2007 01:25, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> The problem is not with PDF, but rather with the interpretation of the
>> `pdfmark' operator by "distiller" applications such as ps2pdf
>
> I agree. Therefore I consider it a bug in ps2pdf.

As I said, the "pdfmark Reference" says nothing about such situations,
and ps2pdf is in agreement with Acrobat Distiller (the reference
implementation).

Thus, I'd say it's an *omission* in the specs, not a bug in the
implementations.

> I beg to differ. An equally common path is to convert the individual
> figures from *.eps to *.pdf and then assemble the document using
> pdflatex.  The metadata in the individual *.eps pdfmark sections are
> then attached to the individual figures, and can be used to navigate
> the resulting composite pdf document.  At least, that's the intent.
> If it's broken, let's fix it.

Right (I do not use `pdflatex' myself, thus I did not feel this need).

At any rate, users of PostScript document producers (LaTeX+dvips, Lout,
etc.)  are currently annoyed by a feature that is beneficial only in
fairly specific scenarios.  :-)

> If there is a better mechanism to do so, great.  But I'd rather fix the
> problem by improving the support rather than by removing it altogether.
> The pdfmark Reference you point to below gives a lot of suggestions how
> to create more sophisticated tags; perhaps someone will be inspired to
> modify post.trm to emit more sophisticated pdfmark sections.

There's only one way to create an info dictionary AFAIK.

Besides, "fixing the problem" would mean "augmenting the pdfmark
Reference", which is obviously not possible.

> Finally, I note that the pdfmarkReference also provides a sample code
> chunk to disable pdfmark interpretation by PostScript interpreters.
> Now that gnuplot allows local customization of the PostScript prologue
> files, perhaps the most straightforward immediate solution is for you 
> to add the code fragment to your local prologue file?

Hmm, I'll look into it, but that looks rather inconvenient.  A
terminal-specific "nopdfmark" option (or similar) would be nicer.

Thanks,
Ludovic.