> Date: 2005-04-07 17:33 > From: "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> If text and PDF/PS formats are generated automatically (and correctly) > >> by > >> the Toolset from the same source, then the Toolset effectively validates > >> that PDF/PS content matches plain text format. > > > > not necessarily - for instance if the source can conditionally generate > > content depending on the output format. > > Good and important point indeed! I will try to include a corresponding > informal "hint" into the draft. With *roff source, nroff is generally used (with appropriate preprocessors and command-line arguments) for text, and troff (with possibly different preprocessors and/or arguments) for PostScript (which can subsequently be used to generate PDF). All of which can be easily automated with a Makefile and suitable suffix conventions. Raw *roff also has facilities for conditional processing, including separate processing depending on whether troff or nroff is being used for processing -- indeed, most macro packages internally use that capability. > > which, if you think about it, > > is about the only reason we should bother trying to generate multiple > > formats from a common source. > > Here I disagree because presentation quality matters to humans who read > our drafts, but I do not think we should argue about this. It will > probably boil down to the definition of "content". Not important... Generally I agree with Keith on this point; the only reason (in an ideal world) to generate PostScript/PDF in addition to text is when the specific draft/RFC has content (typically diagrams or mathematics) which can only be approximated in plain text. However, a certain vendor has created a non-ideal situation, and the RFC Editor accommodates victims of that situation by providing PDF versions of RFCs even where there are no diagrams etc. that warrant improved presentation quality. As far as I know, however, the IETF Secretariat doe not do the same for drafts. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf