HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)

Subject: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)
From: scot <scot -at- HCI -dot- COM -dot- AU>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 12:55:56 +1100

>When format and layout is important, you can't leave it to chance that some
>person's web browser will get the entire page, or that even if they do the

But Arlen, format and layout IS important, which is why Acrobat is a
sub-standard choice. The Author simply dictates a layout and format for the
documentation which does not take into account the capabilities of the
end-user's machine.

SGML, on the other hand, allows the reader's software to determine the best
format for thie given output choice (paper, the 14" VGA screen, the
Workstation's 26" monitor ...)

Talking about Net access problems hardly count when the files are delivered
to the use either locally, or from a easily accessible compnay Intranet.

IMHO Acrobat seems more of a designer's tool (overly concerning with a rigid
final presentation), not an online publisher's (who should be concerned that
the document is structured correctly and can be displayed intelligently on
any hardware).

ciao, scot.

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


Previous by Author: Re: Re[2]: Electronic File Transfer
Next by Author: [no subject]
Previous by Thread: Re[3]: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)
Next by Thread: Re: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads