Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!cae780!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!ken
From: ken@rochester.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: Why troff?
Message-ID: <24357@rochester.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 31-Jan-87 16:55:53 EST
Article-I.D.: rocheste.24357
Posted: Sat Jan 31 16:55:53 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Feb-87 12:06:35 EST
References: <362@linus.UUCP> <106@tg.UUCP> <1556@trwrb.UUCP> <827@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> <3605@milano.UUCP>
Reply-To: ken@rochester.UUCP (SKY)
Distribution: comp.text
Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY
Lines: 22
Keywords: TeX, troff

|On the contrary, TeX can have more problems than troff with font
|compatibility at different sites, although you may mean it at a
|different level than I.  The TeX dvi printer form cannot be printed
|without access to the same font tables that were used to format the
|document.  Troff dvi, on the other hand, has all positioning information
|built into the dvi data stream.  Thus, it is possible to take a
|troff dvi file and transmit it across the country to another site
|(or across campus) to another site with different fonts and get it to
|print reasonably well.  A TeX dvi file cannot do this unless you have
|the same fonts available at both sites.

There are caveats.  If you have an identical printer at the other end,
yes.  If the printer has a different resolution then you have to do
scaling. You get less than pleasing placement especially if the fonts
at the other end are different.  Remember, the positioning info is
based on the fonts at the generating machine.

I would never send dvi files, either troff or TeX unless absolutely
necessary. While -ms or -me based text is portable in theory, I have
had better luck porting TeX files.

	Ken