Re[2]: HTML Editors

Subject: Re[2]: HTML Editors
From: Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 07:15:00 -0600

Why would you elect to put your ISO docs into HTML and view with
Netscape, when a)that lets people save your doc locally, something
you definitely don't want to do in an ISO environment,

The same complaint can be made with Acrobat. If you can view the document,
you can save a copy locally. One might even argue that HTML would be safer,
because it would take more effort to get a complete copy of the doc, as all
the graphics are in separate files, so grabbing one file wouldn't be

It would seem that any ISO-related concerns would be satisfied with the
statement that the authoritative copy can be found only on this particular
machine, regardless of the file format. Then local HTML copies are
reference only, just like local Acrobat copies.

(For the benefit of those who might consider the points expressed herein to
represent schizoid behavior on my part, let me point out that I'm not down
on either format. What I'm down on is anyone blithely asserting that HTML
is vastly superior to Acrobat. I like *and dislike* both formats, and
choose between them based on the requirements of the job at hand.)

Have fun,

arlen -dot- p -dot- walker -at- jci -dot- com
In God we trust, all others must supply data

Previous by Author: Re[2]: Distributing Postcript Files for Viewing, Bounced E-m
Next by Author: Re[2]: Royalties from TECHWR-L ???
Previous by Thread: Re: HTML Editors
Next by Thread: Re: HTML Editors

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads