Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!image.soe.clarkson.edu!news From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Comment on RFC1124 (?) Message-ID:Date: 27 Sep 89 18:28:40 GMT References: <5446@asylum.SF.CA.US> Sender: news@sun.soe.clarkson.edu Reply-To: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY Lines: 31 In-reply-to: karl@asylum.SF.CA.US's message of 26 Sep 89 20:48:07 GMT In article <5446@asylum.SF.CA.US> karl@asylum.SF.CA.US (Karl Auerbach) writes: I thought we were working on communications, not obfuscation. I propose that we ban postscript RFCs [because the on-line text is typically unreadable] Karl has a good point. We must bear in mind that PostScript has the potential for better communication. I offer three solutions less drastic than his total ban: o Keep RFCs in a text-only format, and provide hints to a PostScriptizer that knows what parts of the text should be filled, what parts of the text are actually character graphics (like | and - ), and what parts are tables. o Restrict the types of PostScript that are acceptable to those that can be textized by running them through a filter. That way, a user can reconstruct a reasonable text version of the RFC. o Create a PostScript interpreter that renders its output using a unidirectional stream of ASCII characters. Of course, a reasonable follow-up to this message is: Russ! Good idea! Send me a copy when you get it written! :-) -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee.