🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <y&#@byu.edu> yackd@alaska.et.byu.edu (Don Yacktman) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct5.190630.26539@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, audley@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Christopher D Audley) writes:
>>
>>Every NeXTstep program has the ability to create PostScript files and every
>>NeXT can read them.  Why does there seem to be resistence to using it as the
>>standard format of documentation?
>
>My guess is that this is twofold:  (1) someone would have to set up DL so
>that it can index PS files.  To my knowledge (which may not be complete...)
>right now, indexing PS doesn't work the way you would want it to.  Even so,
>you wouldn't be able to easily open the PS file to the page where the word
>you searched for appears...or, for that matter, find the next word.  So, it
>would seem to me that until DL and Preview get better, you lose a lot by
>going to PS format.  And, (2) PS files are very big compared to, say, a
>WriteNow document.  They can be stored compressed, but then you don't have
>access to the info inside.  (What would be great, though, is to set things
>up so that a ".psZ" file would be zcatted into Preview...hmmm...)  Those are
>the reasons that are most obvious to me; I'm sure others can add to the list.
>

(3) You can't cut and paste text from a Postscript file.

Dave Griffiths