X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2093" "Sun" "20" "December" "1998" "16:11:47" "-0500" "William F. Hammond" "hammond@CSC.ALBANY.EDU" nil "55" "Re: portable LaTeX" "^Date:" nil nil "12" nil "portable LaTeX" nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA31978; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:12:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.2) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <3.41BC64F2@listserv.gmd.de>; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:12:12 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 414265 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:12:04 +0100 Received: from sarah.albany.edu (sarah.albany.edu [169.226.1.103]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA21830 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:12:01 +0100 (MET) Received: from hilbert.math.albany.edu (hilbert.math.albany.edu [169.226.23.52]) by sarah.albany.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA09898 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:11:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from hammond@localhost) by hilbert.math.albany.edu (8.8.4/8.8.3) id QAA23906 for LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:11:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <199812202111.QAA23906@hilbert.math.albany.edu> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:11:47 -0500 From: "William F. Hammond" Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: portable LaTeX Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3222 Randolph -- This is private because it has become quite far from LaTeX3 development. I agree with you about "lynx", which in its own way is very much up to date, not about "mosaic", which, at least for NCSA, is no longer supported. I also agree about lowest common denominators in general. I find, however, that many people whom I find reasonable otherwise, are of closed mind about least common denominators because they do not care about those without one of a few mass market platform/os combinations. This applies even to people in the academic world. I wonder if you know that many agencies of the U.S. government and many agencies of state government are now very focused on the use of PDF. For example, NSF now requires the use of PDF with some submitted materials. It's positively Orwellian. Most seem to prefer serving pdf to ps on the web because (1) it is perceived that very few in target audiences have ps viewing (2) it is perceived that most in target audiences have pdf viewing (3) pdf consumes somewhat less bandwidth than ps, which is important for those with dialup web connections : One of the functions of the Adobe Distiller, which is presented as being : part of the Adobe PDF system, is the abstraction of fonts to just the : characters actually used and the removal of the resizing information; : effectively, this destroys the font for any other purpose. resizing information? I don't know quite what this means. I believe that using "distiller" on ps files with type 1 fonts leads to scalable pdf. : |>|Maybe read http://www.YandY.com/download/pdf_from.pdf More to the point: rather than adding only ps it is a shame that there is not a parallel (lynx-readable) HTML version made from the same original sgml/xml source. : BIG CLUE---WWW transfers are binary. Perhaps you mean http? (ftp is a protocol under the www, as are also gopher and telnet.) Even then I would want to double check the http spec to make sure that some mime types are not understood to be 7 bit. -- Bill