Re: ghostscript developments

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Dienstag, dem 25.05.2021 um 12:22 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
> <lilypond-devel@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Am Dienstag, dem 25.05.2021 um 09:57 +0000 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> > > This might be of interest:
> > > 
> > >   https://ghostscript.com/pdfi.html
> > 
> > Unless I'm completely missing the point of the page, this is about the
> > *PDF interpreter*, not the Postscript interpreter that LilyPond uses to
> > produce PDF files. So I don't really see how this relates...
> 
> They are the same.

They are right now, and while PDF interpretation will diverge, the
Postscript code will stay the same as far as I understand.

> [...]
> 
> But when the ultimate target is PDF (like when using the pdfwrite device
> as LilyPond does), Ghostscript relies on non-standard PostScript
> extensions to indicate things like bookmarks, page links, PDF metadata.
> With the pressure to remove non-standard extensions from GhostScript,
> those might be under considerably more pressure to change or require
> specific setup code to activate.

I think all of this uses the shared pdfmark operator which would be
very ... interesting ... if they removed that from GhostScript.

Jonas

> 
> So we likely need to watch more closely what is happening.
>

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part