[rfc-i] not just 'lineprinter' (was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt)

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Mon Jun 30 18:10:35 PDT 2014



> On Jun 30, 2014, at 4:55 PM, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/30/14, 4:17 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 30, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
>> <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/30/14, 2:57 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 30, 2014, at 1:31 PM, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)"
>>>>> <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 6/30/14, 2:09 PM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I thought the question was /whether/ to generate the ^L, and not
>>>>>> whether
>>>>>> it is feasible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> OK, that's a perfectly fine question.  What software do most people
>>>>> have
>>>>> available to them that can process the ^L?  My assertion, based on my
>>>>> last
>>>>> message, is "basically none".
>>>> 
>>>> Wordpad is still free on all windows pcs.
>>> 
>>> Got anything that works on Macs or Linux?
>> 
>> a2ps has worked for decades, and is available on both.
> 
> After I downloaded it, installed it, killed an entire forrest by mistake,
> figured out what options to use, etc., that worked.

I used the defaults FYI. 

>  Thank you for finally
> exposing one of the secrets.  I say secret, because I don't see anything
> about a2ps on the tools site or the rfc-editor site.

That might be useful to add. 

> 
>>> Again, it's not that there exist options, but that most options don't
>>> work, calling into question the utility of having ^L at all.  If the
>>> target market can't use the feature, the feature is broken.
>> 
>> I don't understand the logic; it's not like the tool (a2ps) has changed.
> 
> The target audience has changed.  Not all of them are willing to spend
> hours dorking around getting command-line tools installed and configured
> anymore.

Sure, for Windows and Mac. We should be using PDF in that case. But if these are Linux users, I think your conclusion is already false. 

> 
> One more time on the *technical* questions I've been trying to ask:  If we
> had a pdf format that had nice widow-and-orphan control, could keep art on
> a single page, could produce long tables with repeating headers, etc,
> would we need a manually-produced text version that had labor-intensive
> ^Ls?  Or alternately, is there an existence proof of tooling that could
> produce such output from the XML?

I don't know. To me, XML is on of those command line tools you complained about above. 

>  If so, would the page breaks be useful
> to anyone that could also download the PDF?

PDF is harder to do diffs on.  

Joe


> 
> -- 
> Joe Hildebrand
> 
> 
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list