chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/29/87)
Desktop Publishing Archive #2
Subjects:
Re: Interleaf
What about TeX? And don't knock the Mac... (2 msgs)
TeX, and our setup
Re: Macintosh desktop publishing software
re: TeX
administrivia
Re: What about TeX? And don't knock the Mac...
re: TeX (3 msgs)
TeX
A few words about Macs & LaserWriters
Re: Speaking of software for publishing...
Re: Macintosh desktop publishing software
Criticisms of MacPub II
What you want is under development at MIT.
Frame Maker Info
a bit of change of pace....
Re: Speaking of software for publishing...
Criticisms of MacPub II
Info on small copiers?
Frame Maker Info
Re: Interleaf
Re: Frame Maker Info
--------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 86 18:55:26 PDT
From: klinner@drseuss (Kent Klinner)
Subject: Re: Interleaf
If you think Interleaf is good, wait 'til you see Frame Maker. It runs
within SunWindows (Interleaf doesn't), it has a nice graphics editor,
it speeks Postscript, and it handles multi-column documents.
--------------------
Date: 11 Sep 86 22:56:04 EDT
From: Greg Brail <hplabs!topaz!ru-blue!GBRAIL>
Subject: What about TeX? And don't knock the Mac...
There has been quite a bit of discussion in this mailing list
recently regarding systems for publishing long technical documents,
such as manuals. Has anyone had any experience with TeX for this
purpose. I know that here at Rutgers, TeX is replacing Scribe, an old
document-preparation system for our DEC-20s which will do most, if not
all, of the things people on this group are looking for.
Unfortunately, I don't know much about TeX, except that it produces
really nice-looking output. I know of Versions for the DEC-20 (yes,
some of us still use them), UNIX, and the Mac. It will preview
documents in a WYSIWYGn fashion on bitmapped machines like the Mac and
Sun, and document files from different versions can be exchanged to an
extent.
So what about it? Will TeX solve our problems, or not?
Incidentally, while on the subject of the Macintosh, let me
point out that, although the Mac cannot handle files of the size that
larger systems can, it provides the cheapest and most accessible
system for the publishing of newsletters and newspapers. With the
possible exception of TeX, it may not be the best for long technical
documents, but it certainly handles multi-column, multi-article
layouts, like newspaper layouts, better than other publishing systems
on other computers. If 300-dpi laser printers are not good enough, the
PostScript files may be sent to a phototypesetter. And for those of us
who cannot afford a Sun on our desk, it ptovides an inexpensive
alternative. In short, I consider it pretty clear that the Macintosh
and the LaserWriter made inexpensive DTP a reality, and were perhaps
the indirect reason for the creation of this group.
--------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 86 10:49:19 PDT
From: joeh@eclipse (Joe Heinrich)
Subject: Re: What about TeX? And don't knock the Mac...
RE:
``...Incidentally, while on the subject of the Macintosh, let me
point out that, although the Mac cannot handle files of the size that
larger systems can, it provides the cheapest and most accessible
system for the publishing of newsletters and newspapers. With the
possible exception of TeX, it may not be the best for long technical
documents, but it certainly handles multi-column, multi-article
layouts, like newspaper layouts, better than other publishing systems
on other computers. If 300-dpi laser printers are not good enough, the
PostScript files may be sent to a phototypesetter. And for those of us
who cannot afford a Sun on our desk, it ptovides an inexpensive
alternative. In short, I consider it pretty clear that the Macintosh
and the LaserWriter made inexpensive DTP a reality, and were perhaps
the indirect reason for the creation of this group.''
Agreed. I just don't want to see it *limited* to Mac
output. It may represent a revolution, but there are
there are those of us in desktop publishing for whom
it is definitely *not* a solution.
--------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 86 10:58:42 -0700
From: J. Peter Alfke <alfke@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: TeX, and our setup
In response to the claim that "there's nothing under UN*X that does
really good indices and TOC's" ...
What about TeX, in particular LaTeX? It's certainly available under
UN*X, does nice indices and TOC's (LaTeX in particular) ... this is a
state-of-theart kinda mailing-list, so why is the dreaded dinosaur TROFF
still being mentioned? I've looked at TROFF and it reminds me of TECO
in more ways than one. :-)
(And while I'm at it: LaserWriter output is very nice, but not really
that great as camera-ready copy for a book (unless you reduce it). It's
acceptable, sure, but the book will look like a real book that's gone
through about two generations of photocopying. And with neat stuff like
PostScript, it's easy enough to send your output files to a place that
will run them off on a Linotronic (which output, by the by, is *damn*
impressive!). I work for Carver Mead, who is doing exactly this with
his VLSI-book-in-progress; the setup is TeX and a homebrew MacDraw-like
illustrator that spits out Postscript, printed via TextSet's DVILaser/PS
program (which has nifty stuff to allow PostScript illustrations in your
document, as well as rotated text and the like), sent to a LaserWriter for
proofing; then the final copy will be sent to a local place that will
Linotronize it. This all is being run on HP 9836s and 320s, running a
very heavily modified UCSD Pascal environment that now looks like UN*X.)
--------------------
From: lll-crg!ucdavis!vega!ccrbrian (Brian Reilly)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 86 12:10:08 pdt
Subject: Re: Macintosh desktop publishing software
The June/July issue of 'The Macintosh Journal' is devoted to
desktop publishing and has reviews of the available software,
including PageMaker, ReadySetGo, JustText, DisplayAd MakeUp System,
and MacPublisher II. There is also a chart comparing the features
of all 5 programs.
The magazine is a 'Consumer Reports' style publication for Macintosh
hardware and software - no advertising and each issue has reviews of
available products in one major area.
I got my copy at Computer Attic in Palo Alto on California Ave., but
since that may not be convenient for some people, the address of
'The Macintosh Journal' is:
B and P Publishing
P.O. Box 1341
Provo Utah, 84603-1341
A subscription is $30.00/yr for 10 issues. Single issues are $4.00.
The magazine itself is done with PageMaker, but they recommend
MacPublisher II as the best buy. They do not recommend ReadySetGo.
--------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 86 15:20 EDT
From: KMcCarthy@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: re: TeX
I am using TeX and LaTeX on an AT clone to create manuals. I think TeX
is far more appropriate for this than a WYSIWYG (or, as I saw somewhere,
What You See Is What Your Stuck With) editor. For each different
manual/document type I can define a set of macros which specify the
format. Then all I have to worry about is what the manual says - the
macros will take care of TOC, running heads, font changes, converting
index marks to an index, footnote style, tables of tables, etc.
The down side of this is that I have yet to find a decent macro package
that will let me create my own customized macros easily. LaTeX might do
that, but I haven't had it long enough to tell. TeX by itself requires
a resident wizard to develop a set of macros; but it seems to have a
full functionality so that a GML could be developed on top of it.
Someday I would like to see a WYSIWYG editor that learns your document
style, then provides you with templates for any particular document.
I am not familiar with MACTeX, so I have no idea whether it is worth
$800 or not.
--------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 86 14:42:06 PDT
From: chuq (Chuq Von Rospach)
Subject: administrivia
Please be aware that this is a public list that goes to many
organizations, so be careful about distributing unannounced or
proprietary information. It is very easy to let it slip, and very hard
to get it unslipped once you do. Think twice before you type.
Also, let us all try to avoid product bashing and marketing hype style
messages. There have been a couple of messages that I've gotten complaints
about because of this. A few guidelines: your product may well be the
best thing since sliced bread, but tell us why, don't just tell us. Also,
every product has strengths and weaknesses. If it doesn't work for you,
that doesn't mean it is a bad product, so try to be fair when you discuss
material and look at what it might be good for as well as what it can't
do. It is reasonable to be critical about a products problems, but make
sure that you aren't trying to get it to do something it wasn't designed
for, first. Emotionalized screaming and subjective attacks don't do anything
except hurt everyone involved -- the product, the list, and the poster.
Please be objective and professional.
Finally, it makes sense for people who are involved in dtp products to
add appropriate disclaimers. If you work on a product, let people know.
Same if you work on a products competitor, or anything that might give
people reason to believe you are less than objective.
--------------------
From: joeh@eclipse (Joe Heinrich)
Subject: Re: What about TeX? And don't knock the Mac...
RE:
``...Incidentally, while on the subject of the Macintosh, let me
point out that, although the Mac cannot handle files of the size that
larger systems can, it provides the cheapest and most accessible
system for the publishing of newsletters and newspapers. With the
possible exception of TeX, it may not be the best for long technical
documents, but it certainly handles multi-column, multi-article
layouts, like newspaper layouts, better than other publishing systems
on other computers. If 300-dpi laser printers are not good enough, the
PostScript files may be sent to a phototypesetter. And for those of us
who cannot afford a Sun on our desk, it ptovides an inexpensive
alternative. In short, I consider it pretty clear that the Macintosh
and the LaserWriter made inexpensive DTP a reality, and were perhaps
the indirect reason for the creation of this group.''
Agreed. I just don't want to see it *limited* to Mac
output. It may represent a revolution, but there are
there are those of us in desktop publishing for whom
it is definitely *not* a solution.
--------------------
From: KMcCarthy@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: re: TeX
I am using TeX and LaTeX on an AT clone to create manuals. I think TeX
is far more appropriate for this than a WYSIWYG (or, as I saw somewhere,
What You See Is What Your Stuck With) editor. For each different
manual/document type I can define a set of macros which specify the
format. Then all I have to worry about is what the manual says - the
macros will take care of TOC, running heads, font changes, converting
index marks to an index, footnote style, tables of tables, etc.
The down side of this is that I have yet to find a decent macro package
that will let me create my own customized macros easily. LaTeX might do
that, but I haven't had it long enough to tell. TeX by itself requires
a resident wizard to develop a set of macros; but it seems to have a
full functionality so that a GML could be developed on top of it.
Someday I would like to see a WYSIWYG editor that learns your document
style, then provides you with templates for any particular document.
I am not familiar with MACTeX, so I have no idea whether it is worth
$800 or not.
--------------------
From: joeh@eclipse (Joe Heinrich)
Subject: re: TeX
This is not original with me, but what I think we're all
clamoring for is a {two,multi} window system: One window
into which you type text and define macros; one window
which is a real-time read-only previewer. A previewer
should be just that--and not The Graven Image With Which
You Are Stuck.
--------------------
From: KMcCarthy@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: re: TeX
I am using TeX and LaTeX on an AT clone to create manuals. I think TeX
is far more appropriate for this than a WYSIWYG (or, as I saw somewhere,
What You See Is What Your Stuck With) editor. For each different
manual/document type I can define a set of macros which specify the
format. Then all I have to worry about is what the manual says - the
macros will take care of TOC, running heads, font changes, converting
index marks to an index, footnote style, tables of tables, etc.
The down side of this is that I have yet to find a decent macro package
that will let me create my own customized macros easily. LaTeX might do
that, but I haven't had it long enough to tell. TeX by itself requires
a resident wizard to develop a set of macros; but it seems to have a
full functionality so that a GML could be developed on top of it.
Someday I would like to see a WYSIWYG editor that learns your document
style, then provides you with templates for any particular document.
I am not familiar with MACTeX, so I have no idea whether it is worth
$800 or not.
--------------------
From: Clayton M. Elwell <elwell@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: TeX
My wife and I have used TeX (with the LaTeX macro package) to do several
extensive manuals (i.e. 100-300 pages, cross references, indices, tables
of contents, figures, etc.), and wouldn't think of using anything else for
anything except the shortest documents. TeX is also fast becoming the
standard text formatter for the OSU Compuer & Information Science Dept. for
many of the same reasons that we use it, to wit:
* Completeness
TeX is not a glorified word processor (like PageMaker or RSG). It
is one of the world's finest typesetting systems, and happens to be
public domain to boot. It has a very intelligent hyphenation &
justification routine which can set text into arbitrary shapes
(a favorite demo of this is setting text into a circle, with
surrounding commentary flowing around it). It has an extensive
macro language built in, complete with arithmetic and logical
capabilties. LaTeX, which comes woth TeX, is a macro package
written in TeX with provides document-level structuring facilities
similar to Scribe (Numbered sections & subsections, contents, indices,
footnotes, cross references, citations, etc.). Also, for those
who know something about typography, it can handle *arbitrary*
kerning and ligatures, something no other Mac product can do
(RSG can do a poor approximation to kerning if you talk to it real
nicely, sort of the way a go-cart is a poor approximation to a
Porsche 944).
* Portability
TeX is one of the most portable and bug-free programs I have seen
in all my life. It indeed runs on such widely varying machines as
DEC-20's, Vaxen, Macs, IBM PC's (though just barely), CDC Cybers,
and many more. Basically, if you've got a Pascal compiler that
can handle large programs, you can probably run TeX. Also, since its
output is device-independent, I can take an output file produced on
a VAX, copy it over to a Sun, preview it on the Sun's nice big
screen, and then print it on a LaserWriter or Xerox 2700 II (two
more different printers you will never see...).
* Support
There is a worldwide organization called the TeX User's Group, which
coordinates distribution and publishes a newsletter full of tips,
anecdotes, useful macros & techniques, enhancement announcements,
and the like.
There are at the moment 2 reasonable implementations for the Macintosh, one
put out by Addison-Wesley (the publishing company), and one put out by a
Canadian company called FTL Systems, Inc. They are about equal in performance,
but have different strengths. FTL TeX has good PostScript support and can
handle all of the LaserWriter & LaserWriter Plus fonts (TeX can handle
as many fonts as you want, but preparing a font description complete
with kerning and ligature information is not for the fainthearted).
Addison-Wesley TeX was written by people who have been involved in the TeX
user community for a long time (Kellerman & Smith), and those familiar
with TeX on other machines will probably find it more comfortable.
There is one major difefrence between TeX and most popular ``desktop
publishing'' systems: it is not designed for the novice. It is designed
to be used by someone who is willing to read the manual and figure out
what they are doing before tghey start doing it. It's not appropriate for
your average executive to use to pound out a cute little office newsletter
by connecting the dots. However, for serious publishing, where output
quality really counts, you do yourself a disservice if you don't at least
try TeX.
--------------------
From: adobe!greid
Subject: A few words about Macs & LaserWriters
I would like to point out that the current limitations in the Macintosh
document formatting environment are not inherent either to the
Macintosh or to the LaserWriter. They are inherent to QuickDraw, and
to the current Macintosh Printing Manager, which essentially provides a
QuickDraw emulator written as a large collection PostScript routines.
This is responsible for a lot of Macintosh output looking sort of similar,
and it is why only a limited amount of text manipulation can be
accomplished (for instance, kerning is not currently supported, other
than by placing characters one at a time).
One solution to this is to write your own Macintosh-based PostScript
driver (which is being done). The first such program was Aldus'
PageMaker, and the Macintosh-based versions of TeX now have PostScript
drivers (as well as many other emerging applications). If you think of
the Macintosh as a 68000-based machine with a windowing system (and
consider the advent of the new larger screens and the SCSI-based disk
drives), it seems like a pretty viable machine to do serious publishing.
But please, let's not talk about *machines*, but about *software*.
Software is the obvious bottleneck, and is primarily what we should be
concerned with in this group. Well, at least in terms of document
preparation. Discussions of document printing would probably involve
hardware....
--------------------
From: joeh@eclipse (Joe Heinrich)
Subject: Re: Speaking of software for publishing...
Chuq:
In my case (of course, all appropriate disclaimers
apply!) my *personal* (all appropriate disclaimers again)
definition of publishing is:
o book publishing. A one-shot, 200 page, write, format, typeset and
send to the publisher item. At least one DTP book published in
the last month did exactly this, using a Mac, laserwriter and
a typesetting house.
o technical documentation. Unix man pages, unix documents. they change,
they get updated, they're a pain to work with. In general, the
technical writing end of the world, which is the least flexible
and most complicated.
It's unfortunate that the area in which the
Mac/Laserwriter combination is truly superior was
ignored--as a generator of high-quality camera-ready
copy. Or was it the publisher's decision to (re)typeset
the copy?
How does the Mac handle something like a 200-page text
file? Even with a hard disk, doesn't it start to choke?
I've only run one with the teeny weeny floppies.
> [Chuq]: Now, something that can handle Man pages probably
> won't handle the flexibility needed to allow someone to
> do the newletter for their User's Group. One implies
> simplicity, one is designed to be simple to use, one is
> for the power user.
>
>
>> Let's face it, Mac just don't cut it. (Or does the nomen
>> ``desktop'' by definition restrict the package to memos, et al.?)
>
>
>
> This is a bigoted insinuation. Maybe the Mac doesn't
> have a package that does what you need, but don't deni-
> grate the fact that it does some things MUCH better than
> the Sun currently does. Much cheaper, too.
I'm not certain what you mean by ``bigoted.'' I'll tell
you something else though that doesn't make it: a 9-inch
screen. The fact that a Mac does bitmapped illustrations
with more facility than pic does not mean I have to be
satisfied with it. I'm not trying to start a holy war
here but I'm a little tired of quote publishing systems
unquote that are merely a cut above a Selectric and scis-
sors. (Glen Rotan makes a good point though--what I'm
looking for is a ``manual generator'' and not a memo tem-
plate.)
> [Chuq]: For example, Interleaf can't do most of what Mac-
> Publisher II does. The Sun doesn't have anything that in
> my eyes comes close to Microsoft Word. From the point of
> view of an author and newsletter publisher as opposed to
> a a tech writer, the Sun sucks rocks in many ways. This
> is said while standing firmly in both sides of the bat-
> tle, as I work with Suns during the day and Macs at
> night. I can't write on the Sun. Does that mean I should
> just toss it away as worthless? No, I should (and do)
> use it for its strengths.
I agree with your description of Interleaf. However, can
you run Microsoft Word in a bitmapped window environment?
On something other than a Mac--i.e., a decent-sized
screen? With a preview facility? Meaning: fonts viewed
in their correct point size, correct leading, etc.? Page
breaks correctly applied? And so on? (See my {no longer
valid?} litany of whinings about Star.)
> [Chuq]: Seriously, though, my MacPublisher II program can
> do all of what you're asking except:
>
>> <> can keep running count of figure numbers and tables;
>>
>> <> CAN GENERATE TABLES OF CONTENTS, TABLES OF
>> TABLES/FIGURES!
>>
>> <> CAN GENERATE (expletive deleted) INDICES!
>
>
> And has hooks in for parts of these. you can generate a
> pseudo TOC in MPII. I don't find it terribly useful the
> way I use it, but it can be done. There is also an
> automatic index generator for the Mac, which is a hack,
> but it can also be done.
>
> I can't think of a Unix based package that really does
> good indices or TOC's, for that matter.
Hmmm. You bring up an interesting point: what is a
``really good index''? The -mex macro package Henry
McGilton and Bill Tuthill have written (that we use to
format our tech pubs stuff) handles indices. And table of
contents are generated *automatically* when invoked
through a makefile.
> [Chuq]: Unless you count the many hacks done to make
> troff conform to some notion of rightness, but we can
> argue for months about whether someone should be con-
> fronted with a beast like troff at all.
>
> One final note: Maker, from Frame Technologies, goes a
> long way towards removing my problems with the Sun from a
> desktop publishing point of view. I still haven't seen a
> good word processor, though. vi and emacs need not
> apply.
My problem is, after having seen things like Bravo and
Star and Island Graphics and Scribe and troff (and even
Interleaf) it's difficult for me to take the Mac seri-
ously. (You're probably right--I *am* bigoted. But why
should I have to be satisfied with *less* than I now
have?) The point is, I don't want to have to learn
aNOTHer system for just a eentsy beentsy bit of improve-
ment. I want a qualitative improvement from the baseline
I already enjoy--is this asking too much?
Maybe I should define what I mean by ``desktop publish-
ing'': I have a Sun on top of my desk and I use it to
publish.
--------------------
From: lll-crg!ucdavis!vega!ccrbrian (Brian Reilly)
Subject: Re: Macintosh desktop publishing software
The June/July issue of 'The Macintosh Journal' is devoted to
desktop publishing and has reviews of the available software,
including PageMaker, ReadySetGo, JustText, DisplayAd MakeUp System,
and MacPublisher II. There is also a chart comparing the features
of all 5 programs.
The magazine is a 'Consumer Reports' style publication for Macintosh
hardware and software - no advertising and each issue has reviews of
available products in one major area.
I got my copy at Computer Attic in Palo Alto on California Ave., but
since that may not be convenient for some people, the address of
'The Macintosh Journal' is:
B and P Publishing
P.O. Box 1341
Provo Utah, 84603-1341
A subscription is $30.00/yr for 10 issues. Single issues are $4.00.
The magazine itself is done with PageMaker, but they recommend
MacPublisher II as the best buy. They do not recommend ReadySetGo.
--------------------
From: pyuxaa!duncan (s.p.duncan)
Subject: Criticisms of MacPub II
Though I've been told some good things about MacPub II (and read them in maga-
zine reviews as well), Gavin Hemphill had two serious criticisms of it in the
Delphi Digest that was posted to UseNet on Sept. 6th.
1) Its non-HFS nature seems to cause it to turn some files into unreadable
formats, i.e., if you are reading in a file to convert to MacPub II format
and store it in another directory. When you complete your work and quit,
no file exists in another directory and the original is unreadable by both
MacPub II and whatever program created it.
2) There is a copy protection override that must, apparently, be redone every
so often (assuming you don't use the master disk). It seems that data has
been trashed several times right around the time this override (24 hrs or so)
expires.
If these are true, I'm not pleased with either one, obviously. I would not buy
the program under these conditions.
--------------------
From: wdc@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject: What you want is under development at MIT.
Dirk van Nouhuys message on production support of large, structured
documents has prompted me to speak and make some people aware of a
project that I have been quietly working on at MIT.
I've seen Interleaf's office publishing system, and I think it is an
amazing product. It is powerful, fast, and featureful. It does a lot
of things really well. I have not seen typesetting composition
systems, so I don't know what additional functionality they offer. I
concluded that Interleaf represented about the most powerful
composition system for a general user that I was likely to see for a
very long time. I have been quietly reading the Desktop Publishing
mailing list here, to see if anything more was around that I had not
seen.
The problem with Interleaf, and everything else I have seen, is that
they are closed systems. You bring your text to them in one form or
another, and then it gets converted into the document format, and
lives in the big document thereafter. Interleaf may add a spelling
checking program, or some other features, but those of us who what to
add our own functionality will have to wait until Interleaf decides to
add the thing we want.
I saw Dirk's wish list and decided I'd better speak up. I am working
on a system called Foundation for MIT Project Athena. My original
idea when I proposed that MIT support work on writing tools was that
NOBODY knew for sure what sort of writing aids would be best, and that
an open system should be developed. This open system might not get
the total performance of an Interleaf, but it would permit a wide
variety of writing tools to be developed, and to interoperate with
each other.
Foundation is to be the foundation for a variety of tools (I call them
applications) which interoperate, and which can share text with each
other. In addition to being an open system, Foundation provides
support of multiple views of data. Any number of applications can
modify text (or other types of data) and then notify the system that a
change was made to a certain sub-block of data, and the system
notifies all other applications that care about that sub-block so they
can update themselves. This idea helps solve a LOT of the problems of
real-time WYSIWYG and other modifiers of your 'document'.
Perhaps you have heard of that new de-facto standard: The X window
system? Those who work with Macs probably have not, but those who
work with Suns or Microvaxen probably have. It provides support for
text (in multiple fonts, of course) and graphics, and windows onto a
graphics display. Foundation is built on top of X. The X window
system provides the keyboard, display, and mouse support. Foundation
supports structured data and other necessary things to make dealing
with writing tools easier.
The first application Foundation is supporting is a simple editor, a
lot like Macwrite. The second will be an annotator, very similar in
concept to Dirk's Blue-Pencil system. There are some writing faculty
at MIT that would like to experiment with receiving papers
electronically, marking them up electronically, and returning them
electronically. The Foundation Annotator is to be the vehicle for the
markup.
Other applications that Foundation has been conceived for:
Multiple versions of subsets of documents that can be manipulated,
substituted, compared, etc.
Tutorials.
Spelling correction (I too like the notions of highlighting,
dictionary, AND heuristics all for the subsystem.)
Outlining. (I am sending the description of The Stanford system to
the people who work for me to inspire them to a good approach to
outlining.)
Doodling in text and/or graphics.
Integration of other programs like spreadsheets and graphics editors,
and equation editors.
Foundation is written in C and runs under 4.2/4.3 unix with the X
window system. It is NOT complete. It is under development. We have
version 2 of the low level text library under dbx right now for
debugging.
If people are interested in more details, I have some documents that I
have prepared and submitted to people at various times.
Unfortunately, the documents have to be rewritten to catch up to all
the changes in the library we made. Our little group is swamped just
writing the code and experimenting with it at this stage.
Ideally, within a couple of years, a bunch of applications will be
written for Foundation that implement WYSIWYG editing, annotation,
notecards, graphics, etc.
I don't know about you guys, but I am really tired of great ideas
getting locked up into proprietary systems that only do one part of
what I want, or of other great systems that got lost because they were
developed on machines that nobody deals with anymore. It's time for
an open system with a lot of people hooking their applications in and
a lot of problems getting solved and staying solved!
Bill Cattey
Applications Development Programmer
MIT Project Athena
1 Amherst St
Cambridge MA 02139
--------------------
From: frame!djm
Subject: Frame Maker Info
Since joining this mail group I have recieved many requests for
information on our WYSIWYG document preparation software called
Frame Maker. Here is a quick description, trying to keep the
marketing hype out (I don't want this to turn into too blatant
a commercial for our product!):
Frame Maker is a fairly powerful WYSIWYG document preparation package
that basically provides the power of Microsoft Word (Mac Version) and
MacDraw in a totally integrated fashion. Above this, it supports
arbitrary column layouts, from simple 1 column documents to tabloid
irregular columns, to text formatted in circles or around free form
shapes. It has optional automatic hyphenation and multilevel paragraph
numbering. It has the ability to name document components, and to
use these names to perform selective global formatting changes (ie.
change the leading following each header line from 6 to 8 points).
Frame Maker runs only on Sun hardware: sun2 or sun3 running OS
versions >= 2.0. It runs within the sun windowing environment (suntools),
and supports the sun notion of "stuff" to exchange unformatted ascii
data with other suntools windows. Maker can import standard sun raster
files, including scanned images from all Sun-compatible scanners such as
the Abaton ($3000.00, 300 dpi, pretty good imaging control). Images
created in Solar Paint can be imported, scaled, and cropped, and portions
of the Sun screen can be captured and included within documents.
We expect to have maker running on other platforms within 9 months, but
have not yet announced these. As a point of reference, the sun code
is about 20,000 lines of code, and 550K of executable: it will easily
fit on smaller machines.
There is a prototype of maker circulating around that dates from
June, 1986. The REAL version (1.0) is expected to ship in November.
We are selling Frame Maker at this time. Customers receive the
prototype now, with a free upgrade to version 1.0. Sales have been
good enough to make Frame a profitable company. The current per
workstation price is $2,500, with volume discounts available.
I will give a quick feature list for the prototype followed by a
description of what is being added in Version 1.
Prototype Features
User Interface:
Mac-style user interface: Mouse-based, Pull-down-style menus, Icons
Dialog boxes.
Optional display of rulers and grids in various scales.
Optional snap to grid and motion constraint.
Multiple document windows can be open at one time.
Formatted text and graphics can be copied between document windows.
Forward and reverse document scrolling.
Go to first, last, next, previous, or numbered page.
Mouse-based text editing with select, delete, cut, paste, etc.
Keyboard-based text editing using Emacs-like commands (forward char,
word, line, sentence, delete forward char, back char, forward word, etc.)
Formatting:
Full document- OR page-oriented reformatting.
Entire document is always kept properly formatted and paginated.
Practical document size limit of around 50 pages (300-500 pp. in version 1)
Document may contain 1 or multiple text "flows" (as in a newspaper).
Text may flow to adjacent columns, adjacent pages, or to any nonadjacent
location within a document.
Columns are vertically justified.
Optional hyphenation.
Paragraph margins and tab settings can be set with the mouse using the
ruler bar, or numerically using dialog boxes.
Optional widow and orphan control.
Paragraphs can be left, center, right, or left and right justified.
Tab types include left, center, right, and decimal, with optional
user definable leaders
Font size and style may vary from character to character.
Point sizes range from 10 to 24, in Plain, Bold, Italic, and Bold italic
versions of Times, Helvetica, Courrier, and Symbol fonts.
Super and Subscripts are supported.
Printed output is to Postscript printers such as the Apple/Sun LaserWriter
and LaserWriter Plus, or Postscript compatible typesetters.
Paragraph formats may be stored in a catalog for later use.
Automatic search and replace.
Standard and custom pages sizes from 3" x 3" to 30" x 30".
Portrait and landscape page orientation.
Automatic headers and footers, adjustable for left and right pages.
Master page allows multiline headers and footers including graphics.
Automatic page numbering in arabic, roman, and alphabetic styles.
Graphics:
Free-form line drawing using rectangles, squares, circles, ellipses,
arcs, polylines, polygons, arrows, straight lines, and free-hand lines.
Import Sun Raster files from paint programs, screen capture, and scanners.
Edit multiple objects and groups of objects simultaneously.
16 user definable fill and border patterns.
Variable line widths.
Move and size objects in all directions using the mouse.
Size objects numerically using a dialog box.
Reshape polygons and lines.
Change draw order (front/back)
Clip objects.
Scale, crop, and invert raster images.
Version 1
Version 1 adds a bunch of user interface improvements and functional
enhancements including:
"Anchored" graphcs and text (allows objects to be tied to a specific point
in a text flow, so that, as that point moves due to text editing, the
associated objects also move).
Table of contents and index generation.
Better support for setting mathematics.
Support for the Macintosh/LaserWriter font library from Adobe and other
font vendors (we provide upload and conversion utilities).
More powerful reformatting commands.
More powerful drawing tools and commands, including rounded rectangles and
optional smoothing.
Larger document sizes.
Keyboard macros and user definable keyboard mappings.
I have probably left out some features and been unclear in some areas, but
this should give you a pretty good idea of what the product can do.
You can get more information by calling our San Jose office at (408) 433-3311
or by email to sun!frametech!stk. Please send technical questions,
complaints, and suggestions to me.
--------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 86 17:01:15 PDT
From: chuq (Chuq Von Rospach)
Subject: a bit of change of pace....
Not to distract from the technological issues, but there are some other
DTP issues I'd like to bring up:
o art and graphics. Does anyone know of sources for clip art and other
graphics (electronic or not) that can be used in dtp? I'm
specifically interested in futuristic stuff, but any good
sources would be appreciated.
o the U.S. Post Office. Half of my costs go to postage. Is anyone out
there experienced with the intricacies of the Post Office -- how I
get set up with a bulk mail license, whether to use second, third,
or fourth class, etc. etc. Is there a good book on Postal Regulations
and how to put all this together? (in english, not bureaucratese...)
--------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 86 17:19:09 PDT
From: chuq (Chuq Von Rospach)
Subject: Re: Speaking of software for publishing...
> It's unfortunate that the area in which the
> Mac/Laserwriter combination is truly superior was
> ignored--as a generator of high-quality camera-ready copy. Or
> was it the publisher's decision to (re)typeset the copy?
>
> How does the Mac handle something like a 200-page text file?
> Even with a hard disk, doesn't it start to choke? I've only run one
> with the teeny weeny floppies.
I don't think high-quality WAS ignored. There are a number of typesetters
that interface through Postscript when the LW isn't good enough. You can
use your IW as a draft printer for the LW if you want, or the LW as a
draft printer for the Linotype, depending on how much you're willing to
spend and what level of quality you need.
If you've only run on floppies, especially 400K ones, your Mac is
severely handicapped. I'm doing 30 pages a month on a 10 Meg disk
with no problem, and I've worked with some really long files. The
floppies really hurt the system for "serious" work, more than you
might think.
>>> Let's face it, Mac just don't cut it. (Or does the nomen
>>> ``desktop'' by definition restrict the package to memos, et al.?)
>> This is a bigoted insinuation.
> I'm not certain what you mean by ``bigoted.''
The definition for bigotted (in this context) is "if it won't do what I
want, it can't be any good" which is what you are implying. That is a LOT
different than "it won't do what I want, so it isn't good for me" which is
what ;should have been said. That Mac won't do some things well, but
every system has its strengths and weaknesses. I really object to your
comment of "restricting it to memos" as I'm doing some serious publishing
(as I've said 30 pages a month in finished copy). That certainly isn't a
memo, and I'm doing it for a LOT less money than I could do on just about
any other machine. As I said in my administrivia, try to keep "what is good"
separate from "what is good for me".
> I'll tell you something else though that doesn't make it: a 9-inch
> screen. The fact that a Mac does bitmapped illustrations with
> more facility than pic does not mean I have to be satisfied with
> it. I'm not trying to start a holy war here but I'm a little
> tired of quote publishing systems unquote that are merely a cut
> above a Selectric and scis- sors. (Glen Rotan makes a good point
> though--what I'm looking for is a ``manual generator'' and not a
> memo tem- plate.)
I'll disagree with you on the screen, and drop it. For me, it does cut it,
although I'd like a larger screen. The tradeoff is, among other things,
cost. If I want a $15,000 machine, I'll get a larger screen. Or I might
get a Mac AND a Laserwriter. It is all in your priorities, and for me
at least, cost IS a serious tradeoff factor.
My quote publishing system unquote does some pretty amazing things. I'll
have to send you a copy of what I'm doing for about $5,000 and a few
evenings a month. I'd never get it done without my Mac.
> Hmmm. You bring up an interesting point: what is a ``really
> good index''? The -mex macro package Henry McGilton and Bill
> Tuthill have written (that we use to format our tech pubs stuff)
> handles indices. And table of contents are generated
> *automatically* when invoked through a makefile.
For me, a good index lets me find what I need to know. This says more
about the indexer than about the indexing technology. Sun's indexing
technology is good -- I've used it a number of times. Sun's documentation
is pretty well indexed, too. There is a good reason why many publishing
houses use professional indexers, though. Things that are 'obvious' to
the author (and the person who usually index things) tend to not be as
obvious to someone not familiar with the document, and things don't always
get indexed when they should. Every piece of technical documentation gets
dinged by this from what I can tell, Mac documentation is no exception.
I think the stuff I've seen from Apple is a little worse indexed than
most, actually.
--------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 86 17:25:51 PDT
From: chuq (Chuq Von Rospach)
Subject: Criticisms of MacPub II
> 1) Its non-HFS nature seems to cause it to turn some files into
> unreadable formats, i.e., if you are reading in a file to convert to
> MacPub II format and store it in another directory. When you
> complete your work and quit, no file exists in another directory and
> the original is unreadable by both MacPub II and whatever program
> created it.
I've yet to lose any data to MacPub II, and I've always been able to read
things back. Text is left in TEXT format, so it can be read by any
WP program. Pictures have a special format that Paint or Fullpaint CAN'T
read, but it is documented and you can always just paste it into the
clipboard and read it in that way.
> 2) There is a copy protection override that must, apparently, be redone
> every so often (assuming you don't use the master disk). It seems
> that data has been trashed several times right around the time this
> override (24 hrs or so) expires.
Every 24 hours, and I haven't figured out how to get around the CP
yet. Haven't tried hard, either. There DOES seem to be a CP bug where
if you cross that magic 24 hour barrier things get flakey. I haven't
trashed anything to date, all you need to do is exit the program and
restart, reinitializing the master. The CP seems to simply be an
invisible file datestamp on the disk, so I'm thinking that I'll just
write a DA to update that before I start the program, saving me the
hassle of the key disk. We'll see.
There ARE some HFS compatibility bugs in MPII. Nothing critical, but it
doesn't work cleanly in the new ROM's. When I get a chance, I'll document
them since I want to send them to the publisher. I hope they update it
soon, it is about due (MPII was shipped at MacExpo last year in February
for the first time, I believe). The publisher just got bought by someone,
too, so we'll have to see what happens. With a little care, MPII is
fine, so don't let the compatibility problems hold you up. If it worries
you, either create MFS floppies for the data files or an MFS volume on
your HD and you'll be fine.
--------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 86 17:52 EDT
From: Tom.Lane@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Info on small copiers?
Today's question concerns what happens *after* you have your newsletter
nicely typeset...
Does anyone have any information/opinions on small copying machines?
In particular, I've been looking at the Canon NP-155 and Minolta 350Z,
which seem to be about the cheapest machines that have continuously
variable expansion/reduction (a must in my case). Would appreciate
any info on reliability, maintenance costs, etc. concerning these machines;
opinions on Minolta vs. Canon in general would be of use too.
If you know of other machines I should be considering, I'd like to hear
about them too.
Please reply by e-mail to me; will summarize to the list if there is
interest.
--------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 86 12:09:09 PDT
From: joeh@eclipse (Joe Heinrich)
Subject: Frame Maker Info
David:
I read with interest your synopsis of Frame Maker,
specifically the section:
``It runs within the sun windowing environment (suntools),
and supports the sun notion of "stuff" to exchange unformatted ascii
data with other suntools windows. Maker can import standard sun raster
files, including scanned images from all Sun-compatible scanners such as
the Abaton ($3000.00, 300 dpi, pretty good imaging control). Images
created in Solar Paint can be imported, scaled, and cropped, and portions
of the Sun screen can be captured and included within documents.''
Are the text files Unix-intelligible or are they
Frame-specific binaries? To be useful to us in
Tech Pubs I think they should be the former.
Tom Athanasiou states this cogently:
``...Even closed systems (like Frame or Interleaf) have structure
information embedded in their documents. It's just that that
information isn't written in a "language" as much as it is
encoded in a program-specific set of binary numbers. The
ASCII markup language issue is only important if you are
designing an open system; that is, if you expect that your
files will be shared with the larger programming environment,
that is, with Unix...''
In other words, we are interested in a publishing
system that is not opaque to Unix, since we are
both *writers* and book *designers*.
--------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 86 15:53:37 PDT
From: joeh@eclipse (Joe Heinrich)
Cc: joeh@eclipse
RE: `` ...The definition for bigotted (in this
context) is "if it won't do what I want, it
can't be any good" which is what you are imply-
ing. That is a LOT different than "it won't do
what I want, so it isn't good for me" which is
what ;should have been said. That Mac won't do
some things well, but every system has its
strengths and weaknesses. I really object to
your comment of "restricting it to memos" as
I'm doing some serious publishing (as I've said
30 pages a month in finished copy). That cer-
tainly isn't a memo, and I'm doing it for a LOT
less money than I could do on just about any
other machine. As I said in my administrivia,
try to keep "what is good" separate from "what
is good for me"...''
Chuq:
I'll explain my position, and then drop it. I
think I probably over-reacted because I saw a forum of
interest labelled ``desktop publishing'' degenerating
into a backslapping gaggle of self-congratulatory Macin-
tosh users contentedly dealing with the small subset of
problems inherent in publishing ``30 pages a month in
finished copy.'' As an introduction to further comment,
let me explain how I view our needs in Tech Pubs.
We, in Tech Pubs, are in the DTP (CAP, actually)
business as both users and manufacturers. As such, we
are thrashing out a Design Spec that codifies ``a set of
directions'' from which will be evolved the specifica-
tions themselves. This set of directions is probably a
superset that includes all the sorts of things brought up
thusfar in this forum. I say ``probably'' because the
set more than likely will include everything that satis-
fies the needs of someone who publishes a few pages a
month, and yet also satisfy the requirements of something
like Tech Pubs, which puts out up to 10,000 pages of fin-
ished text in a month. Now, I happen to think there is a
qualitative, and not merely a quantitative, difference in
these requirements. A difference with which MacPublisher
II or PageMaker or ReadySetGo (even if scaled upwards)
are not equipped to handle: the qualitative difference
between putting out a newsletter and the 7000-page suite
of Sun User Documentation*. For instance, does MPII
allow the user to manipulate widows and orphans and
rivers and ladders? How about verso and recto pages,
kerning tables and ligatures and end-of-line hyphenation
and multi-column rule. . . ? (You know, all the stuff
that REAL publishers are able to do? Without having to
hand-tune each page unless you WANTED to?)
But that's not the real point. The real point
I'm trying to make is that this forum should not limit
itself to the World of Macintosh. We ARE the market;
let's take advantage of it! People like Dave
Murray@Frame are asking US what we want in a DTP package;
we should pushing the outward limits of desktop publish-
ing systems, not merely waiting until the package emerges
and then blithely cataloguing for each other the attri-
butes of Yet Another MacFormatter.**
Okay. Enough MacBackBiting. I would be
interested to know if anyone on this list is working in a
Milspec environment, and if so, what systems they use to
publish things like Tech Orders and the enormous specifi-
cations the government demands?
_________________________
*And at the risk of beating the hardware ques-
tion into the ground, (even) 10 Mbyte hard disks aren't
a viable option for us. An original and a backup copy
of a single manual, The Beginners' Guide, would over-
fill 10 Mbytes. So, until we can hang an Eagle off the
Mac it isn't reasonable to consider it. (CPU speed
aside.)
**Although S Page has an interesting idea:
since the majority of enhancements in DTP will come for
the Mac, (because that's where vendors believe the
market is strongest), they are be a good bellwether for
the future.
--------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 86 10:40:48 edt
From: Clayton M. Elwell <elwell@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Interleaf
Interleaf? Ick! Ptui!
Based on my experience, Interleaf sucks proverbial worms through a straw.
The performance isn't any better than PageMaker on a Mac, and it is much
harder to use. For example, I believe they should get prizes for the
following:
Most Creative Use of Strange Symbols in a Manual
Modal User Interface that Best Fools The User Into Thinking It's
Modeless
Least Orthogonal User Interaction Metaphor
It's better than nothing, especially for novices, but I'd rather type things
up by hand than use it for anything serious.
I speak from experience. Until I used it, I thought it was wonderful.
Unfortunately, although it is based on the work done on ETUDE, they left
out the best ideas.
--------------------
From: frame!djm
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 86 16:12:09 PDT
Subject: Re: Frame Maker Info
In response to your question regarding Frame Maker files:
Are the text files Unix-intelligible or are they
Frame-specific binaries?
In Version 1, Frame Maker will be able to read and write three kinds of
files:
Frame Maker binaries (fast & compact)
Simple ASCII (stripped of font and structure info, useful for mail,cc,etc.)
Frame Maker ASCII exchange language
The ASCII exchange language is a gencode-like human readable file. It
allows for complete, fully formatted documents, and also for simple
unformatted streams of text, perhaps with embedded font markup.
To call this a language is a bit misleading because it is a descriptive
language, rather than a processing language (no if-then-else constructs).
You can basically define component formats, and then list components,
specifying their type (ie. their related format) and their content (ie.
their text). You can also define document, page, header, etc. layout, and
graphics.
With this exchange language, two things can be accomplished. First, it is
possible for users to write filters to exchange data between Frame Maker
and other formats (troff, IGES, a database). We will provide many of
these filters over time, but programming users will not have to wait
(they will just have to work!).
Second, it is possible to process a maker document using the wealth of
existing UNIX filters, and by writing yor own c programs.
Later versions of Frame Maker will include a formatting language built
upon the exchange language, to allow for things not possbile in a WYSIWYG
editor.
--------------------
From: potomac!jsl@seismo.CSS.GOV (John Labovitz)
> From: Clayton M. Elwell <elwell@ohio-state.ARPA>
> [Tex] can handle *arbitrary*
> kerning and ligatures, something no other Mac product can do
> (RSG can do a poor approximation to kerning if you talk to it real
> nicely, sort of the way a go-cart is a poor approximation to a
> Porsche 944).
For the Macintosh, JustText (from Knowledge Engineering) will do both
kerning and ligatures, using the AFM files from Adobe (oh yeah, JT only
works on the LaserWriter). It seems to do a pretty good job, altho I'm not
a typographer.
If you want high-quality output, you might look at JustText. It's a pain to
use because the commands are the standard typesetting commands (like {ql} to
justify the previous paragraph, {fX} to change to font #X), and they are
very simple. You have to do your own sections, chapter headings, paragraph
breaks, etc. Headers and footers are handled in a rather strange way.
There is also no way to define macros. Needless to say, it's not a WYSIWYG.
However, I've occasionally gotten a complex page from a published book and
COMPLETELY reproduced it (aside from differences in fonts). It's more for
quality of the output than quality of the user interface.
----------------------------------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com
Note: digests go away when the archives are complete.
Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM [I don't read flames]
There is no statute of limitations on stupiditychuq@plaid.UUCP (05/05/87)
Date: Mon, 4 May 87 10:27:12 pdt
From: inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson)
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
I've been reading this group for quite a while now, and figured it had not
much to offer me. Our publishing, which certainly originates at a desktop,
doesn't all happen there. I too am working in a Technical Publications
group, and we have little use for most of the DTP products out. The person
who asked if anyone else works in a MilSpec environment where 10 Megabytes
is about big enough for a section prompted this response.
We are currently wrestling (as we have for the past 5 years or so) over how
best to automate our page makeup process, which we currently are doing by
way of illustrators hand massaging every page. Yes, that is the OLD way, and
yes, it has inefficiencies, but no, putting a Mac on all our writer's desks
will not fix things for us. If anything, it would compound our problems.
We publish about 7,000 pages a year, and for our uses there are not many
contenders. To satisfy our needs, a publishing system needs:
-A snazzy editor that lets writers go anywhere in a big document
instantly. (Big is 100 to 500 pages). The editor should be easy to
learn and use, provide all the utilities writers have come to expect
(e.g., spellchecker, global search and replace; editable, storable
macros)
-A lot of memory. We keep approximately half a million pages in archive,
with about half of that on line. We need to share files large files
with meticulous revision control.
-Full WYSIWYG. No codes visible to the writer ever. When the document is
code converted, codes should be able to be filtered out so revisions
and corrections can be made. When they ARE in, codes should be human
readable.
-Ability to shove any file through a formatter that creates pages
according to predefined page specifications.
-Automatic numbering and reordering of any numbered item: lists,
illustrations, tables.
-Auto TOC, auto LOT, auto LOI, auto index.
-Output to laser for review copies, to typesetter for finals. The
typesetter should be able to output galley, plates, or film.
In the context of a technical publications environment, damn few systems can
cut the mustard, and micros never will. We are talking databases here,
chums! Large volume production just can't be done by a "desk-top publishing"
system. In fact, I submit that there is no such thing as DTP, or at least
its a misnomer. I believe DTP systems are not really for publishing.
Publication happens when a team consisting of a writer, editor, illustrator,
technical reviewer, and a production staff create a large work for a large
audience.
When a single person sits down to his DTP system and cranks out a newsletter,
no matter how efficiently, that person is not publishing! S/he is just using
the right tool for a publication-like job. The question for me is what is
the right tool for my kind of publishing. Thankfully, a few companies are
meeting the needs of those of us who publish (according to my definition).
Please see the Seybold Report, Vol 16, No 12 of March 2, 1987 for details.
Xyvision: "layout-driven pagination suitable for areas such as magazine
publishing".
Texet: "handling structured documents rather than the broader needs of
commercial typesetting...oriented almost exclusively toward corporate
publishing and the milspec/aerospace markets, particularly where long
documents are composed to a fixed layout.
Interleaf: "sometimes added to the competition, generally when the
application requires extensive graphics manipulation and fast
composition speed, while not requiring sophisticated composition. Also
has a significant price advantage in most configurations".
Admittedly these are not DTP systems, with the possible exception of
Interleaf. Still, I was glad to see someone else here talk about "real"
publishing.
A typical scenario goes like this: someone sees a new DTP product
(Interleaf, Word 3.0, and Ventura are the latest of these), they like what
it does, and become familiar enough with it to produce a little sheet that
they think looks terrific. In producing it, they have become familiar with
some of the decisions made regularly in "real" publishing, because on a
micro level (*grin*) they have had to deal with them: dynamic running heads,
offset pages for image shifting, figures and tables floating, sinking, or
anchored to a first mention, gutter size, ladders and rivers, and so on. I
disagree with the previous poster, who said they may even wrestle with
ligatures, because I doubt most DTP types would know one if it came up
behind them and smacked them up alongside the head! The favorite program
probably never heard of a ligature either.
Anyway, with this experience tucked under their belt, they feel qualified to
tell me how I ought to get all my writers a <generic micro> with <generic
software> and really start cranking out the pages. But I take a look at the
3 to 12 page pamphlet or whatever, and see that it has of typos since it was
never seen by anyone except the proud parent, it is in a format that was
invented on the fly and looks it, usually has about 14 different fonts and
sizes of type because they were there, and in general looks like a one-man
show. But since they created it, they are absolutely blind to the poor job
they have done!
True publishing involves more than a desktop and a <generic>: it means that
some sort of standards are going to be adhered to. Someone is going to edit
the thing for adherence to those standards, for clear language, technical
accuracy, presentation. There may be anywhere from 1 to a dozen or more
reviewers! The failure of DTP is that in giving full control over publishing
to one person, the person is never aware of the larger issue, in short, will
this publication really meet anyone's needs, or am I the only one who thinks
its beautiful?
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Gary Benson * John Fluke Mfg. Co. * PO Box C9090 * Everett WA * 98206
MS/232-E = = !fluke!inc = = (206)356-5367
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-ascii is our god and unix is his profit-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
---------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com
Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM [I don't read flames]
There is no statute of limitations on stupidity