Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!scarecrow.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely From: jgreely@scarecrow.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Decrypting RFC 1125 Message-ID: Date: 7 Dec 89 06:50:08 GMT References: <8911240620.AA06208@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1989Dec6.173258.1036@utzoo.uucp> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: J Greely Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science Lines: 22 In-reply-to: henry@utzoo.uucp's message of 6 Dec 89 17:32:58 GMT In article <1989Dec6.173258.1036@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Hmm. This means, of course, that except for illustrations (haven't looked >at 1125 myself), it would be trivial to supply an ASCII-text version of >1125 -- just run through nroff instead of troff. It would Sure Be Nice >to have a greppable version... Sigh. Correct thought, wrong RFC. I hadn't realized until now that we had miscopied 1124 as 1125 here. 1124 is the "troff | pscat" output, 1125 is "TeX | dvi2ps", where dvi2ps is an old, ugly, non-conforming dvi converter. Take all of my negative comments about the other PS RFCs, and apply them to 1125. 1124 is, however, fine, although running it through nroff would still be useful for many people. The loss of the illustrations may hurt it (I haven't read the text, just the PostScript; I'm not near a printer right now!), but I'd consider the increased convenience worth it. Actually, the same thought applies to TeX. Dvidoc produces reasonably formatted ASCII text from TeX documents, and it's widely available. -=- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)