[tex-k] A question on inclusion of poscript file into LaTeX document

[Robin Fairbairns]

Andrew Komornicki <komornic at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I have a question about the behavior of Latex/pdflatex when one
> wants to include a figure in the form of a postscript file. 
> my test file does a simple \includegraphics of a postscript file. 
> Eventually I would like to create a pdf file as a final document. 
> A simple test file is found at the end of this brief note. 
>  
>  this is a current version of TeX/Latex as the log file shows: 
> This is pdfeTeX, Version 3.141592-1.21a-2.2 (Web2C 7.5.4) 
> (format=latex 2008.2.17)  8 SEP 2008 16:36 entering extended mode 

(not particularly "current", actually, but no matter).

> Have run my test file in three(3) modes. 
> 
>   1.  latex axx.tex 
>        --  runs correctly and produces a dvi file 
> 
>   2.  latex axx.tex 
>         the file contains the directive \pdfoutput = 1
>         the run aborts with the comment: 
>      Non-PDF special ignored!
>      Non-PDF special ignored!
>      Non-PDF special ignored!] (./axx.aux) ) 
>      -- note, no pdf file produced....... 

you switched latex to pdflatex _after_ loading the graphics package; the
graphics package had detected latex, and set itself up for dvips output.

>   3.  pdflatex axx.tex  
>        the run aborts with the comment: 
>     ! LaTeX Error: Unknown graphics extension: .ps.
>      -- note, no pdf file produced....... 

because pdflatex graphics can only cope with pdf, png or jpg, 

>   My question is whether this behavior is correct and expected. 

yes.

> if so why?  should not all three of these modes produce a correct 
> output file, whether  dvi, or pdf ?? 

no.

see http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=impgraph and its
careful path through the various versions of latex and their
capabilities.

(note, the faq answer doesn't cope with xetex or luatex, yet.)

r