Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!UDEL.EDU!Mills From: Mills@UDEL.EDU Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: PostScript Versus ASCII Message-ID: <8909301233.aa05407@huey.udel.edu> Date: 30 Sep 89 16:33:12 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 79 Vint, I've been waiting for this discussion to ripen before commenting, but you have nicely captured my own thoughts and said it better than I could. I too argued the issue in favor of PostScript, not so much because of infatuation with the language, but because I perceived it to be the most widely supported in the various WP and DP packages and compatible printers most widely distributed. While there have been squawks about compatibility on my own submission (RFC-1119), which (hopefully) have been fixed, I still cling to that view. In a world that must in my view encompass commercial software and non-Unix systems, and if a non-ASCII-compatible presentation capability is required, then PostScript is a logical choice. On judgement calls, such as when is PostScript "justified" for figures, tables and formulae, not to mention fonts, I stand mute. I don't think it is productive to argue the conditions under which an author is "allowed" to choose PostScript or be "required" to choose ASCII. Having submitted bunches of RFCs of both kinds now, I probably would make different choices a year back or a year hence. It does seem reasonable (as my friends tartly reminded me) to avoid use of any but the basic PostScript features, for instance found in the relatively ubiquitous Apple LaserWriter (standard model). It may in any case be useful to scout the features (or lack thereof) with printers of various manufacture and develop a hints-and-kinks guide for prospective authors. On the matter of duplicate submissions in PostScript and ASCII. I have to resist this for the same reasons as Vint points out. The tools I use every day include mathematics manipulation and presentation packages, image scanners and other computer-aided publishing (CAP - you heard it here) software which produce PostScript as output. My WP and DP software is capable and even convenient for the process of combining and formatting reports and papers containing that data. In fact, in my PostScript submissions you may notice the images and graphs are in Encapsulated PostScript (EPSF) format and can be snipped from the document. The point is that the job of rendering that, not to mention formulae, stylish fonts and visually exciting tables is simply beyond the resources of my time and the time of my supporting staff. Finally, there is the issue of production efficiency and staff training. In the past most of us who wrote RFCs were intimately involved in the work reported and edited, formatted and published the RFCs ourselves. I still do this myself. However, I have a lot of friends in the university and industry research community who depend on secretarial staff to do the legwork. Most of the publishing done is in research reports, conference submissions and journal submissions, which clearly call for something prettier than ASCII. Therefore, staff are usually trained to produce good-looking documents consistent with the quality expected in these publications. Asking them to maintain dual-track editing, formatting and archiving with available software systems (and that includes 'roff, 'Tek, Scribe, MS-Word, Ventura and the rest) is simply not practical. Now, it might even be possible to entertain an ad-hoc "standard" WP/DP software suite, such as 4.3bsd Unix tools or Ventura/MS-Word or Slate or something, but I don't think so. The WP/DP community is evolving like fruitflies - I have gone through two versions each of WordPerfect, MS-Word, Ventura and even several versions of hardware and operating systems in the last couple of years. I conclude that such a standard is elusive, even if ODA is said to be immensely imminent. When ODA and/or the other sprouting standards mentioned recently become available more-or-less ubiquitously to our community, I will be among the first to subscribe to them. Meanwhile, note that PostScript contributors are asked to submit the source files used in the preparation of the document, as I did. There is no guarantee that these files would be compatible with every WP package; however, it is true that the bulk of the text is available in a form that would not violate the Principle of Least Astonishment assumed in many ASCII editors. While I am not sure the RFC archive keepers would wish to make these files part of the archive itself, I would assume the author could make them available upon request. Finally, I propose a cardinal rule that might satisfy the widest community that have no access to PostScript printers. If an author chooses to publish in PostScript, that author should be prepared to mail paper copies upon request. I am happy to comply with that rule. Meanwhile, we have urgent need for a browser program that can munch through PostScript output looking to collect just the text and do something reasonable to produce an ASCII document that can be gripped, grepped and grokked by the masses. Dave