Perhaps this has been mentioned and I wasn't paying attention. When I try to import a postscript file (which is EPS according to the R help on postscript) my Framemaker filter chokes. If I simply edit the first line of the file to put %!PS-Adobe-3.0 EPSF-3.0 rather than %!PS-Adobe-3.0 it works just fine. It sure would be simpler if the postscipt driver put this in the file. Paul Gilbert -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
On 29-Oct-98 Paul Gilbert wrote:> Perhaps this has been mentioned and I wasn't paying attention. When I > try to import a postscript file (which is EPS according to the R help on > postscript) my Framemaker filter chokes. If I simply edit the first > line of the file to put > > %!PS-Adobe-3.0 EPSF-3.0 > rather than > %!PS-Adobe-3.0 > > it works just fine. It sure would be simpler if the postscipt driver > put this in the file.It shouldn't have to. The PostScript Document Structuring Conventions allow both forms "%!PS-Adobe-3.0" and "%!PS-Adobe-3.0 EPSF-3.0" with the rider "Document composition programs should not use these keywords [namely "EPSF-3.0" and others] when producing a document intended for printing or display. Instead, they should use only the "%!PS-Adobe-3.0" comment. Illustration applications may also use the EPSF-3.0 keyword." Note "may also use". Since an EPS file can be recognised anyway by the presence of %%BoundingBox somewhere, the EPSF-3.0 is not necessary. Forcing R to produce "!PS-Adobe-3.0 EPSF-3.0" could break printing/display software which conforms to the DSC according to the above quote. The limitations of one program (Framemaker) should not be used as a reason for producing output which could defeat compliant software. However, I wouldn't be against having "EPSF-3.0" as a user-selectable option. Best wishes, Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> Date: 30-Oct-98 Time: 02:20:36 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
> From: Peter Dalgaard BSA <p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk> > Date: 30 Oct 1998 11:17:02 +0100 > > Prof Brian D Ripley <ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk> writes: > > > The postscript produced by R is EPS (Encapsulated > > PostScript) compatible, and can be included into other > > documents, e.g. into LaTeX, using > > `\psfig{file=<filename>}'. > > > > and psfig has never been part of LaTeX and has been deprecated by the LaTeX > > team since the former LaTeX2e became LaTeX in 1994. The preferred way is > > the graphics/graphicx packages; these make the interim epsfig package > > defunct. > > Hm? I've been using > > \usepackage{epsf} > ... > \epsffile{<filename>} > > for ages. Is that one deprecated as well?Yes, although less than psfig. I have the converted V&R2 sources (which used epsf) to graphicx for V&R3 recently. psfig was very flaky in its internals, but was thought to have a nicer interface than epsf. epsfig was a psfig-style interface on (mainly) epsf internals, but graphics/x really is a lot better. (Especially as it is the only mechanism that works with pdf files, relevant here if you want to convert eps to pdf for inclusion by pdftex.) I've just checked: Lamport 2ed only has graphics/x documented, and it is the preferred package of the LaTeX Graphics Companion. Look at the epslatex.ps document on CTAN for the history, and the delights of graphics/x. Brian -- Brian D. Ripley, ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272860 (secr) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
Prof Brian D Ripley <ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk> writes:>Given that everyone else has to have filters to correct FrameMaker's PS >exports to be valid EPS, perhaps writing a filter for import to FrameMaker >would be poetic justice.Yes, but Framemaker is owned by Adobe, so there is also some chance they're doing it right, although that has never been a guarantee.>Paul did not tell us which version of R he is using, and the postscript() >driver has been changed in 0.63. However, I believe that if it does produce >a valid EPSF file it should have EPSF-3.0 in the header, and if it does not >it should definitely not.I'm using R 0.62.4 and a fairly recent version of Framemaker (5.5.6). I could write my own little filter as Brian suggested, but I thought other people were probably having this problem too. If putting this in would break other application's filters then perhaps Ted Harding's suggestion of having "EPSF-3.0" as a user selectable option is the best answer. Paul -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._