From walt@netcom.com Wed Aug 26 19:18:09 1992
Received: from netcom.netcom.com by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8)
	id AA24727; Wed, 26 Aug 92 19:18:09 +0200
Received: by netcom.netcom.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA07240; Wed, 26 Aug 92 09:53:55 PDT
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 09:53:55 PDT
From: walt@netcom.com (Walt Brainerd)
Message-Id: <9208261653.AA07240@netcom.netcom.com>
To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Processing Words
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

> From: Keith.Bierman@eng.sun.com
> 
> In my order of preferance:
> 
> 	1) Frame
> 
> 		Complete SGML support before our next rev of the 
> 		standard.

I would like some details on what this means.  Importaion of SGML
docs in some special form?  Production of an SGML doc from Frame
fromat? ???
> 		
> troff and tex fall above my level of pain. Doing work in a purely
> markup based system is a giant leap backwards and I can't justify
> spending my time in such perverse endeavors to my management.

This goes to my question: What are people NOT on the editorial
committee expected/required to do with the document?  This comment
assumes everyone will be working with the document in the same
form that it is maintained.

> As for walt's questions:
> 
> 	1) pure ASCII isn't powerful enough; I see no
> 	   good reason to mandate that xlation to pure ASCII
> 	   be perfect. 

Everyone must be able to READ to document.  I assume we are not
going to require everyone in the world to own Frame to be able
to review our work.  It would sure be nice if everyone were
reading the same document (i.e., same text on the same lines!!!).
ASCII and PostScript are the only ways I know of to do this--
are there other possibilities?  And maybe even PS is not universal
enough that we can demand everyone be able to "read" PS docs.

> 	2) Generation of postscript is a good thing. ...
 	   ... troff and TeX fail to follow the
> 	   Adobe structure protocol and are a pain to deal with.
> 
This has nothing to do with troff and TeX.  It has to do with the
translator from the output of these formatters to PS.  I have
delivered PS documents produced by "devps" (a translator from troff
to PS) to many people with no problem.  I will admit I have had
problems with Sun's product "dpost" that is supposed to do the same thing.

>         3)  Those not involved in direct ownership of the document
> 	    should be encouraged to use the right tool; but anything
> 	    including scrawls on napkins can be handled no worse than
> 	    now.

I don't think "encouragement" is relevant.  Either all others dealing
with the document will have to have the tool or they won't.  If they
are not required to have the tool, then there must be facilities for
making it available in other forms.  E.g., what do we make available
to someone on WG5 who does not own Frame, but wants to find all
occurrences of "formatted" in order to write a proposal?
>  
>         4)   X3J3 should not plan to develop special purpose tools.

Maybe my question was not clear.  X3J3 has already developed "special
tools", such as the one that generates Annex D.