[resend, with the correct address and a PS: somone mentioned XML, and i concur 
it is a superior `root format' to HTML, allowing the generation of whatever 
cross references are most suited to the medium.]

On Friday August 8, 2003 12:08 pm, you wrote:
> In message <p06001a01bb595b7a8fb8@[67.75.12.40]>, "Daniel R.
> Killoran,Ph.D." wr
>
> ites:
> >Look guys, I consider html to be a pain in the posterior but nobody
> >asked me, right?
> >I guess html is going to be the standard for documentation, based on
> >the notion that "everybody is on the web"
> >(I would prefer acrobat pdf personally, another thing nobody asked.)
>
> PDF sucks.  Why on *EARTH* should there be "page breaks" in an electronic
> document?

How in 7734 can anyone prefer PDF to HTML for online docs? `Portable' is 
pretty much the one thing PDF isn't. A, you *have* to have a pretty 
high-powered graphical system to use it; B, ghostscript viewers (gv, 
kghostview) have some real problems handling things like landscape. eg 
http://rodeby.noteperfect.net/organscores/BWV572JSBachFantasiaG.pdf

If you want portable, use HTML.

If you *must embed* graphics (or stubbornly insist on particular fonts), or 
are after good print rather than portable CRT presentation, use Postscript. 

IMO PDF is just a hamhanded attempt to lock people to Winduhs. Its ONLY real 
feature vs Postscript is hyperlinking, and that's not usable on my machine 
anyway.