1) I thought that `text' and `text-plus' were to be combined?
They are going to be combined in the next draft. This was sort-of agreed
upon before the meeting. We only touched on it at the meeting very briefly.
2) I feel very strongly that richtext should not be further expanded to
have `internal-reference' tokens, or in fact to have any mechanisms
which do not map directly to text. This kind of proposal indicates to
me that people are not really serious about trying to make XXXX an
actual standard. If we need to play these kinds of games, let's define
a new hypertext formatting language in a new and different document.
I'll let you fight this one on the list with the people that want such a
mechanism. It is not in the current draft, and we left it as "open for
proposals to be posted to the list".
3) Excerpts from ext.ietf-822: 27-Nov-91 Minutes of the 822 meeting ..
Greg Vaudreuil(_at_)nri(_dot_)resto (12638)
1) PostScript
Adobe has defined Postscript in such a way that it does not require
profiling information. A security considerations section was written
by Ned Freed, essentially pointing out the nature of the risk
associated with file operations, and recommending that they be
disabled. Machintosh postscript files, which normally require a
laserprep header to be printable, must be sent with the laserprep
headers to avoid the need to externally label the files as Machintosh
files.
This is not restricted to the Macintosh. FrameMaker and other document
preparation tools output Postscript files which contain includes of
other Postscript files. Any included file must be included with the
including file.
I realize that this is not restricted to the Macintosh, nor do we limit the
discussion to Mac laserprep files. This is just the example that came up at the
meeting (it is also without a doubt the most common source of actual
operational problems). However, it is important to note that the Macintosh
laserprep is something of a special case since it is an include file that
usually is not mentioned in the document structuring conventions of the
document that needs it. I believe that Framemaker does the right thing in the
DSC for its includes, as do most other applications. (As I recall, the version
of Framemaker we use around here certainly does the includes right, both
referencing the included document and including it, in accordance with the
DSC.)
In any case, the important thing is that PostScript materials be complete and
standalone and not depend on any includes that are not actually present in the
stream. This is just the same as if you wanted to print your document on an
arbitrary PostScript printer, so it is not an especially onerous condition to
have to meet. The one exception that can be made is for encapsulated
PostScript, which may not include a showpage operator. Of course such things
are by definition intended for inclusion in a larger document, and do not stand
on their own in any case. And the DSC provide for this as well, as I'm sure you
know.
Ned