[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]


Ian Tindale scripsit:

> Not convinced. In fact, using your examples, you're in danger of presenting 
> possibly out of date possibly distributed possibly restored from backup etc. 
> versions rather than to regenerate the freshest one and only. [strokes chin, 
> makes tea, wondering if I'm actually right - nah - nobody ever does that with 
> PostScript unless they're mad or talk to themselves.].

Au contraire.  People *do* keep around Postscript all the time -- when you
download a technical paper, the chance that it is in Postscript or PDF
is pretty close to 100%, unless it comes from the W3C or some such place
that has an ax to grind.

In any case, people don't always *want* the latest version.  Sometimes they
want the version that was published (i.e. distributed to the public,
not necessarily printed) on January 12, 1999, with not a jot changed.

-- 
John Cowan                                   jcowan@r...
        "You need a change: try Canada"  "You need a change: try China"
                --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member