🚀 go-pugleaf

First jeffb.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Jeffrey Boser) writes:

>>2) Using Text files for docs does not let the creator to use graphics
>>   and picts (as complicated programs sometimes require) as he wishes.
>>   Besides, MacWrite, Word, and WriteNow have fairly standard formats
>>   and can be handled by most word processors.

Then resnick@cogsci.uiuc.edu (Pete Resnick) replies:

>Using programs which create mini-applications for docs is much nicer
>than MacWrite, Word, or some other thing that at least *someone* is
>bound not to have. You can also put graphics and picts in TeachText,
>though it is less fun.

While everybody seems to agree, that its _a good thing_ to keep the
compression formats open, so one is able to examine the stuff on Unix-
boxes or PC's, why don't the same argument hold for documentation?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but formats like [nt]roff, tbl and pic are
open and available on several platforms (except Mac??). Why can't we
stick with these?

---
Jan B. Andersen (jba@dat.ruc.dk)

Hurra for Broendby!!
on many platforms
>pr
>--
>Pete Resnick             (...so what is a mojo, and why would one be rising?)
>Graduate assistant - Philosophy Department, Gregory Hall, UIUC
>System manager - Cognitive Science Group, Beckman Institute, UIUC
>Internet/ARPAnet/EDUnet  : resnick@cogsci.uiuc.edu
>BITNET (if no other way) : FREE0285@UIUCVMD