>[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.

Ok, ok - I have no great love for pdf in particular - it's my 
compromise to avoid having to use WORD, which I really hate. And OS-X 
lets me create pdf files instead of printing them.

Given a choice, I would stick to plain ascii for anything that can be 
documented in the roman alphabet.

My real gripe is having to use something I don't have to read 
instructions that i need to read!

Dan Killoran