[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Ian Tindale scripsit:
> Not convinced. In fact, using your examples, you're in danger of presenting
> possibly out of date possibly distributed possibly restored from backup etc.
> versions rather than to regenerate the freshest one and only. [strokes chin,
> makes tea, wondering if I'm actually right - nah - nobody ever does that with
> PostScript unless they're mad or talk to themselves.].
Au contraire. People *do* keep around Postscript all the time -- when you
download a technical paper, the chance that it is in Postscript or PDF
is pretty close to 100%, unless it comes from the W3C or some such place
that has an ax to grind.
In any case, people don't always *want* the latest version. Sometimes they
want the version that was published (i.e. distributed to the public,
not necessarily printed) on January 12, 1999, with not a jot changed.
--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com
"You need a change: try Canada" "You need a change: try China"
--fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know
|
