In <1nabhbINN87a at MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> smith-una at yale.edu (Una Smith) writes:
>gilbertd at chipmunk.bio.indiana.edu (Don Gilbert) writes:
>>The problem with postscript as a common document format is
>>that most biologists with microcomputers do not have any
>>software already installed that will display it.
Maybe Don could build a postscript viewer into his gopher client? (No,
please don't flame me! Just a thought... :-) I am not very familiar
with the reliability of RTF since I usually don't use it... How are
pictures encoded in RTF?
>Well, we're talking about an Internet archive here, right? Any biologist
>sophisticated enough to get a document off the Internet is probably more
>than capable of also grabbing software with which to read or print it.
Getting documents off the Internet is not as difficult as it was once
but has become more easy with the aid of sophisticated client software
which allows one to point and click on the files one wants to access
(I am obviously Mac biased). But I seriously doubt that people who
can work with a Gopher client are also willing to put quite big
efforts in installing something like Ghostscript. (Maybe if someone
wrote a nice piece of installation software?)
>I'm a confirmed TeXaholic, myself.
I second Una's recommendation of LaTeX, but again I doubt if somebody
used to WYSIWYG would change this for it.
Just my $0.02, Cornelius.
/* Cornelius Krasel, Department of Physiological Chemistry, U Tuebingen */
/* email: krasel at studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de */
/* "People are DNA's way of making more DNA." (R. Dawkins / anonymous) */