Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.apps:4787 comp.sys.mac.misc:9887 comp.sys.mac.programmer:22874 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!dkuug!ruc.dk!jba From: jba@gorm.ruc.dk (Jan B.Andersen) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: PROPOSAL - Archive Standard Message-ID: <1991Mar21.123303.9895@gorm.ruc.dk> Date: 21 Mar 91 12:33:03 GMT References: <1991Mar20.181449.29057@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: Roskilde University, Denmark Lines: 34 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