[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 22:39:53 PDT 2014


Hmmm.  The Mac defaults were fine.   I'm surprised the default was A4. I didn't have to play with fonts either. 

Joe

> On Jun 30, 2014, at 8:14 PM, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>> mistake,
>>> 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
>>>> 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.
> 
> Linux users deserve suboptimal user experiences is your point?
> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
> 
> 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
> require FFs.
> 
> -- 
> Joe Hildebrand
> 
> 
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list