From owner-celegans@net.bio.net Tue Aug 02 23:00:00 1994 Newsgroups: bionet.celegans Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.uta.edu!eatworms.swmed.edu!leon From: leon@eatworms.swmed.edu (Leon Avery) Subject: Re: An Electronic WBG? Message-ID: <1994Aug3.173648.20801@news.uta.edu> Sender: news@news.uta.edu (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: eatworms.swmed.edu Organization: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center References: <9408021934.AA19609@eatworms.swmed.edu> <1994Aug3.155715.13202@news.uta.edu> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 17:36:48 GMT Lines: 66 In article <1994Aug3.155715.13202@news.uta.edu>, patrick@wbar.uta.edu (Patrick Phillips) writes: |> I have to agree with Don on this one. RTF would seem to me to be the best |> way to go since most word processors will let you save in this format |> just using the "Save As" equivalent. Of course the big question for Leon |> is, will FrameMaker save in RTF format :-? Patrick has uncovered my secret grudge: Framemaker will NOT save in RTF }:-<. But it's not just me! What about laTeX? Huh? We're not going to leave Jean Thierry-Mieg out in the cold, are we? Actually, I don't think we can ask for something that everyone likes. The highest to aim for is something that many people like and everyone can live with. I don't like RTF, but I can probably live with it. Barely. Actually, I hate RTF. It's not just Framemaker. I've used RTF many times to transfer documents, and more often than not, it trashed them. In fact, this happened to me again just last week. Cori Bargmann sent me a draft paper in RTF, I imported it, and all the references were printed on one line. Think well, RTF-lovers. Stop reading the Microsoft propaganda. How convinced are you that RTF really WORKS? |> Another question would be about |> the graphics stuff. I don't think that either RTF or HTML support a native |> graphics format, but instead use references to external files. Using |> NEXTSTEP (which I do), there is something called RTFD which includes all |> attachments, such as graphics files, in a subdirectory hierarchy. Does |> the equivalent exist on Macs and IBMs? Patrick is correct about HTML: graphics are handled as references to separate files. Mosaic will show them on the page with the text. This sounds to me like what you say RTFD does, but maybe I'm missing something. |> Another question would be how well |> WWW viewers handle RTF and RTFD formatted files. The viewers for NEXTSTEP |> like it because RTF has support built in the operating system. Does |> Mosaic handle it nicely? If not, then we are probably back to HTML because |> I think Leon has an Internet resource in mind. No real problem here. Mosaic can't handle RTF directly, but there's a free RTF to HTML translator out there. If we publish in RTF, the WWW server will just translate on the fly. (There are also multiple WP to HTML translators, MS Word to HTML translators, Frame to HTML translators, laTeX to HTML translators, troff, Texinfo, DECwrite, Interleaf,... Excuse me. Lost control for a minute there. Won't happen again.) |> I would say, whatever format you decide on, just put it on the Internet first, |> and then see how things go from there. Well, maybe. Is the elec WBG to replace the paper one, or be in addition to it? If it's in addition, then why would anyone do the extra work submit to both? If it replaces it, we have to have some way of supplying those people not on Internet. |> Patrick Phillips |> University of Texas at Arlington |> patrick@wbar.uta.edu -- Leon Avery (214) 648-2420 (office) Department of Biochemistry -2768 (lab) University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center -8856 (fax) 5323 Harry Hines Blvd leon@eatworms.swmed.edu Dallas, TX 75235-9038 .