🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun3.025314.12511@sq.sq.com> lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin) writes:
 >kenw@skyler.arc.ab.ca (Ken Wallewein) writes:
 >>  I've no idea whether your quest is difficult.  However, there was a
 >>column in a recent Macintosh magazine claiming that "editable PostScript"
 >>should -- and probably would -- become the standard interchange language of
 >>complex documents.  I thought it made sense.
 >
 >It makes little or no sense at all to me!  Were they serious?
 >
 >A PostScript document doesn't mark a heading, or distinguish between uses
 >of an italic font (keywords and emphasis, for example).  There's little
 >point in transmitting formatting information in most cases, but the
 >structural information is entirely lost.
 >
 >Yes, you could define a new commenting convention to retain some of the
 >structure.
 >
 >But what about ODA?  What about SGML?  Document interchange is the _purpose_
 >of SGML!
 >

Usually when someone refers to "editable PostScript" They are referring
refering to some well defined set of postscript routines (and possibly
some use of structured comments) that are easily editable by some
program. Adobe Illustrator's format is a example of this although it's
focus is more on drawings than complete documents.  I've never seen one
as elaborate as something like ODA or SGML but it's doable I think and
not really that wacky of a concept.

-mike hoegeman, mh@awds.imsd.contel.com