View the attached postscript file in ggv (GNOME GhostView) for a demonstration of how positively broken moz's print engine is. This postscript file is rejected by ghostscript when trying to print on my BJC620. Other simpler pages work (ie, plain text emails etc). Browser: Moz/5 0.9.1 on RedHat Linux 7.1
Assign to Roland.
Oliver: The PostScript code starts with -- snip -- %!PS-Adobe-3.0 %%BoundingBox: 36 36 559 769 %%Creator: Mozilla (NetScape) HTML->PS %%DocumentData: Clean8Bit %%DocumentPaperSizes: A4 %%Orientation: Portrait %%Pages: (atend) %%PageOrder: Ascend %%Title: AutoSupply New Zealand (LMVD): Japanese and European Used Cars for Sale. Japanese Import, Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, Honda, Isu zu, Mitsubishi, Suzuki, Mercedes, BMW %%EndComments % MozillaCharsetName: iso-8859-1 -- snip -- This output is definately not from Xprt (the print engine used by Xprint module). Setting component to "Printing" to track issues caused by the native PostScript module... Oliver: "Xprint-module" is an alternative to Mozilla's native PostScript module...
Reassigning to owner of native PostScript module...
If your talking about the black backgrounds.. those are transparent gifs..and transparent images are broken.. not supported yet.. on printing. This is a duplicate of 12307. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12307 ***
I am NOT JUST talking about the images. Yes the images are stuff yes I know that and ok so the bug is a dup in that respect. However everything else is also fux0red. You will note that if viewed in ggv 1.0 (Gnome Ghost View) that the GIF's are scaled to many times larger than they should be and links have excessive spacinging around them. eg, text that should read "this link here" reads "this link here" where 'link' is a link.
This is not a description of a bug. Can describe what is wrong.. and assign a bug to each thing that is wrong. The point of my comment.. is you must describe a bug.. then I can fix that problem.. not an array of problems or an image that does not look correct. Can you change this bug into a description of a problem. And even better.. come up with an example that shows the problem exactly. Also.. try printing out the example.. does that look ok? It is hard for me to guess or let say I fixed the transparency.. you could keep coming back saying something else did not look right. Like you said.. your not just talking about images.. keep one bug to one issue.
Reporter, please refile a bug with a specific statement. The bug for transparent images is currently filed and in progress, and this bug has been duped before. When reporting a bug, it's makes our life a lot easier if you produce a clear statement and steps to reproduce, unless it's so obvious we won't miss it. Thanks!