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.