Re: [groff] Fonts, PDF images, groff vs. heirloom troff

[John Gardner]

Nice tricks!

Some day when I run out of idiotic OTT projects, I'll probably try to
modernise DWB3.3 <https://github.com/n-t-roff/DWB3.3> the way Gunnar Ritter
modernised Heirloom Troff.
Expect to see picasso(1) like you've never seen him before. ;-)

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 09:11, Robert Thorsby <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 27/01/19 02:02:52, Mircea Hossu wrote:
> > If the text "GROFF and Friends" was initially a standalone image
> > which was stacked on top of another image, it seems like it's exactly
> > the goal. Would it be possible to share how you achieved this, i.e.
> > how to "wrap a bitmap in custom Postscript code"? Even if it's
> > manually tedious, it would be ok. Also, if it uses any kind of
> > non-standard operators, it would be useful to know what the
> > limitations are, for example, if you have to use specifically the
> > GhostScript program to convert PS->PDF, etc.
>
> [Sorry for including such a large attachment -- it is an actual invoice
> with the address details substituted].
>
> Is the attached something like what you are trying to achieve.
>
> The letterhead is boilerplate text.  The invoice details are
> automatically inserted from a database using a bash script.  The
> watermark image is an EPS file inserted via the .PSPIC request (hence
> the size of the attached file).
>
> The "PAID" stamp is pure postscript (and *very* kludgy).  The defined
> string "I*N*V*P*D" triggers it's insertion. If the .ds is null then the
> stamp is not inserted and the text "This invoice has been paid in full"
> is replaced with instructions on how to make payment.
>
> The only problem I had when creating the template was that the
> automatic placement of the "PAID" stamp is into a static location.  Of
> course, it's location may be altered manually but I have no need to do
> so because that section of the invoice contains no substantive detail.
>
> I found that inserting text is much better done with postscript code
> than creating an image.
>
> Once again, sorry for the large file.
>
> Robert