Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!UF.MSC.UMN.EDU!fin From: fin@UF.MSC.UMN.EDU ("Craig Finseth") Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Comment on RFC1124 (?) Message-ID: <8909281833.AA28399@uf.msc.umn.edu> Date: 28 Sep 89 18:33:29 GMT References: <[A.ISI.EDU]28-Sep-89.07:35:08.CERF> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 33 It is probably worth pointing out that Postscript is a representation targeted to the task of rendering a document as an image. In itself, it does not contain enough information to enable a program to mechanically produce a "reasonable ASCII" form of the document. Note that is is possible to extend Postcript so as to include this additional information using comments and/or special operators, but such a solution is not currently supported. I would also like to mention that, as the ASCII form will no doubt be wanted by more than one person, it only makes sense for the original author to perform such conversion once. (As an added plus, the author can then excercise quality control over the ASCII form.) As the Postscript advantages are more for diagrams than running text, why not offer a separate .PS file with just the diagrams? I have seen this done on several documents around the net, and it works pretty well. The following files would then be offered: RFCnnnn.TXT ASCII form as usual, with crude drawings RFCnnnnILL.PS Nice, Postscript versions of the drawings RFCnnnn.PS Postscript form of the whole thing (Yes, I realize that the ASCII form of the drawings is somewhat difficult to do and not going to work as well, but in general such drawings should be only a small fraction of the work involved with producing the RFC.) As a test case, could we ask the authors of RFCs 1119 and 1124 to come up with the ASCII versions? Craig A. Finseth fin@msc.umn.edu [CAF13] Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc. (612) 624-3375