[rfc-i] not just 'lineprinter' (was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt)
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Mon Jun 30 20:14:18 PDT 2014
On 6/30/14, 7:10 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>> After I downloaded it, installed it, killed an entire forrest by
>> figured out what options to use, etc., that worked.
>I used the defaults FYI.
The defaults sent to the printer automatically, sized for A4, with a
slightly smaller font than optimal. This worked better for me:
--medium=Letter -B -l72
>>>> 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
>> The target audience has changed. Not all of them are willing to spend
>> hours dorking around getting command-line tools installed and configured
>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.
Linux users deserve suboptimal user experiences is your point?
>> One more time on the *technical* questions I've been trying to ask: If
>> had a pdf format that had nice widow-and-orphan control, could keep art
>> 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
I'll let someone else talk about how good XML is.
>> If so, would the page breaks be useful
>> to anyone that could also download the PDF?
>PDF is harder to do diffs on.
You might use different formats for different purposes, or you might use
one of several PDF diff tools, including one from Adobe. Diffs don't
More information about the rfc-interest