Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 19 Dec 1998 12:14:32 +0000 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> There was the `DVI standards' committee. It refused to address the
> real issues including \special{...} at a point where it might actually have made
> some difference. Hence lost a great chance to prevent a huge mess.
> (They did however discuss how many angels can fit into one scaled point).
i think they were overawed with the effort required to write a
standard. i told 'em so when they started: i also told 'em about the
angels/pin head danger...
the standard they produced was intended to be extended into areas
where it might actually have been useful (in berthold's sense) but i
guess they were `whacked' after what they did do. i'm not surprised:
writing standards (with any degree of rigour) requires stamina -- it's
not something i would undertake as a voluntary, spare-time, project.
incidentally, i would contest william hammond's curious assertion that
dvi is in some sense a `higher level' format than pdf or ps. in any
document modelling i've ever read (e.g., oda, for which i gave a
reference a while back), all three fit at the bottom of the tree,
being non-revisable[*] forms. that no package exists to create dvi
from pdf or ps merely represents the futility of making such a
transformation -- it doesn't suggest that the transformation is
impossible.
i agree with berthold: let's stay at the top level -- the revisable
(la)tex input file. arguing about output formats, whether they be
aimed at the dot-matrix printer or reasonably generic gets us
absolutely nowhere imo.
robin
[*] which is not to say they _couldn't_ be edited, merely that no-one
in their right mind _would_ edit them in the ordinary course of
events.
|
|
|