Re: Re[2]: Electronic File Transfer

Subject: Re: Re[2]: Electronic File Transfer
From: scot <scot -at- HCI -dot- COM -dot- AU>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 12:43:22 +1100

>>For those users, Acrobat might be considered acceptable "neutral
>>territory."

>HTML is a far more neutral, and now a perfectly viable option (as long
>people don't start going crazy on Netscrap-proprietary tags).

Agreed. Also, as HTML 3.0 is a form of SGML, it concentrates on the
-structure of the information held-, not the formatting of output as Acrobat
and similar products do.

You have to allow from everything from 14" VGA screens to people with large
multisyncs and 1600 * 1200 24 bit displays. By using HTML/SGML, and allowing
the actual output format to be determined by the software at the user's end,
you mainly escape these types of problem. IMHO.

scot.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
#include witty.quote.here. HCI Consulting, Sydney, AU
#include std.disclaimer. http://www.hci.com.au/
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-


Previous by Author: Re: Maria Hunt/Tim Altom
Next by Author: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)
Previous by Thread: Re: Electronic File Transfer
Next by Thread: Job Announcement/Clarkson/Upstate NY


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads