3.581 SGML is best; e-journals in PostScript (43)

Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca)
Fri, 13 Oct 89 20:02:45 EDT

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 581. Friday, 13 Oct 1989.


(1) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 89 22:15:08 EDT (14 lines)
From: amsler@flash.bellcore.com (Robert A Amsler)
Subject: TeX, Postscript or SGML?

(2) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 89 13:37:00 EDT (37 lines)
From: KESSLER <IME9JFK@OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: 3.575 e-journals in PostScript (24)

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 89 22:15:08 EDT
From: amsler@flash.bellcore.com (Robert A Amsler)
Subject: TeX, Postscript or SGML?


The only format from which the others can all be derived is SGML.
I.e. Tex==> Postscript; SGML ==> TeX; and SGML ==> Postscript
strike me as possible translations. Postscript ==> SGML;
Postscript ==> TeX and TeX to SGML strike me as unlikely to
succeed.

Thus, it would seem SGML is the best solution, with some
software to do the other conversions.

(2) --------------------------------------------------------------143---
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 89 13:37:00 EDT
From: KESSLER <IME9JFK@OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: 3.575 e-journals in PostScript (24)

I personally have postscript, the Mac Lasewr printer; but not
everyone would, I imagine; perhaps Text is best, since it can be
converted by whatever word-processor people are using, no?

Jascha Kessler UCLA/ IME9JFK@UCLAMVS