Encapsulated postscript and the family argument

On Mon, 25-Aug-2003 at 08:03AM +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:

|> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Patrick Connolly wrote:
|> 
|> > > version
[...]

|> > However, what wasn't obvious to me was that it is necessary to specify
|> > what family to use.  If no family is specified, the default family
|> > does appear to be used, BUT, the resulting file is no different from a
|> > 'regular postscript' file.  The value in ps.options does not seem to
|> > be used in the same way.
|> 
|> The family used is nothing to do with EPS.  The code is always
|> EPS-conformant (but may not be a single page), but the *header* is only
|> sometimes, the times being documented.
|> 
|> > Is this intentional behaviour?
|> 
|> Is what, exactly?  

A.  What I thought was going on with family seemily being used
differently when paper was 'special'.

Now with some gentle prodding, I see that I was confusing two
different plots I was working on.  Some swapping back into memory
hadn't finished on Monday morning when I made my observation.  All
rather embarrassing.


|> A long-timer such as yourself really, really should know not to
|> send in vague statements not backed up by the code used to leap to
|> these conclusions!

Yesterday, I knew considerably less about the difference between EPS
and regular PostScript (and most of that was misconception), so I was
unaware how simple the distinction was.  Constrained by that
ignorance, I couldn't think of a way of showing more clearly what I
was on about.

Thanks Brian for your patience in helping me sort that out.

I have a small question about that difference:
Am I correct now in thinking that apart from the first line of a
single page graphic file (with current versions) reading

	%!PS-Adobe-3.0 EPSF-3.0

instead of

	%!PS-Adobe-3.0,

the only substantial differences between an EPS and a PS file are the
positioning of the origin of the bounding box at 0, 0 and the removal
of page orientation information?