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)