PostScript (Was: Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses)
1991-11-13 05:47:18
| Yes, I think that objecting to TeX or troff, on the grounds that it is
| underspecified, is a much better argument. I could see an RFC on "The
| Use of TeX in Formatted Internet Mail" (but then I could see an RFC on
| "The Use of TeX"... :-). Is Postscript well-enough specified (or can it
| be, in a few paragraphs)?
PostScript is well enough specified. The only thing is that like many
other content-types it needs a subtype - in this case used for specifying
the PostScript level i.e. "Level 1" or "Level 2".
ttl
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses, Pekka . Kytolaakso
Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses, Valdis Kletnieks
Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses, Bill Janssen
Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses, Ned Freed, Postmaster
Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses, Ned Freed, Postmaster
Re: Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses, David Herron
Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses, Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)
Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses, Johnny Eriksson
Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses, Keld J|rn Simonsen
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: ISO-2022 as a separate RFC, Ned Freed, Postmaster |
Next by Date: |
Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses, Nathaniel Borenstein |
Previous by Thread: |
Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses, Bill Janssen |
Next by Thread: |
Re: PostScript (Was: Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses), Dave Crocker |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|