Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!dls From: dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: PostScript Versus ASCII Message-ID: <4289@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 1 Oct 89 19:44:36 GMT References: <8910011258.aa16514@huey.udel.edu> Organization: PUCC UNIX Group Lines: 25 In article <8910011258.aa16514@huey.udel.edu>, Mills@UDEL.EDU writes: > The problem is not simply ASCIIfying the text, but rendering images, > figures, graphs and whatnot that are difficult or impossible to ASCIIfy and > are the reason to select PostScript in the first place. I'd find it useful even if only the text were available in ASCII form. If your concern is the wasted time generating a complete document, I agree and I'd say "don't bother." If you make the text available, then I can use RFC's as (many are) intended-- as references. That's what distinguishes them from many papers, where the overall meaning is more important than the details. Being able to search and quote text from a standard is certainly an important part of having the standard-- to have a "judge" when implementations differ. It's clearly more time consuming to use a paper (or even on-screen display PS) document and either type in the text or say "section X, about page YY, if you're using a Z-point font," etc. etc. when sending e-mail to point out why an implementation isn't quite right. I just want ASCII for search and reference text and agree with all of your (and other's) points about moving towards easier preparation, higher quality and greater expressive power. Just leave a hacked partial paper around to be used as a full index and not as a duplicate or replacement for the PS version and I, at least, will be happy. -- +-DLS (dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu)