Doesn't Ghostscript have a txt2pdf program?
/Tom Kern
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:12:39 -0400, Tony Harminc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/4/16 David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It'd still be nice to have something on Linux that understands 1403
listings, though.
lpd...?
Tony H.
In a message dated 4/17/2008 8:48:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doesn't Ghostscript have a txt2pdf program?
Been so long don't remember. Used to use DEVICE(PSA) to pass to ghostscript
for .pdf output. Then along can _www.irfanview.com_
DCF and Waterloo SCRIPT had a few differences in the interpretation of
the dot commands, so often macros written for one didn't work on the
other. Waterloo SCRIPT did support GML, but again, a slightly different
set of tags than DCF, so that documents written for one often looked
different on the
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 04/16/2008
at 09:31 AM, David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I've used both as well; the comparison is closer if you compare GML to
DocBook; raw DCF is rather like raw troff macros; not for the faint of
heart.
It's not that bad, especially if you write macros for your
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 04/15/2008
at 09:33 AM, David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'll say in public: if IBM is willing to let me have the source for DCF
and Bookie, I will port it to Linux for free. I want it for my own use,
and I think there are others who feel the same.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on
04/15/2008
at 03:55 PM, Tony Harminc [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Is IBM DCF significantly different from the publicly available Waterloo
Script?
Yes, even if you're talking about the chargeable[1] Waterloo Script. I
don't know whether they contributed the latter or
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/15/2008
at 04:11 PM, Ed Finnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Basically 'text formatting languages' DCF adds GML tags and on into XML.
Both way behind La Plume(MI) and La TeX(Stanford).
Don't confuse TEX, which is Donald Knuth's, with LaTEX, which is Leslie
Lamport's.
2008/4/16 David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It'd still be nice to have something on Linux that understands 1403
listings, though.
lpd...?
Tony H.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email
Would you guys stop talking about DCF (Document Composition Facility,
5748-XX9) a.k.a. Script in the past tense? It is still available for
z/OS, z/VM, and z/VSE.
Yes, but aren't DCF, BookMaster and BookManager MVS all functionally
stabilized?
I'll say in public: if IBM is willing to
David Boyes wrote:
I'll say in public: if IBM is willing to let me have the source for DCF and
Bookie, I will port it to Linux for free. I want it for my own use, and I think
there are others who feel the same.
Or ask them for the layout of the bookmanager books and the indexes.
IBM also
2008/4/15 David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'll say in public: if IBM is willing to let me have the source for DCF
and Bookie, I will port it to Linux for free. I want it for my own use,
and I think there are others who feel the same.
Is IBM DCF significantly different from the publicly
In a message dated 4/15/2008 3:07:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is IBM DCF significantly different from the publicly available Waterloo
Script?
Basically 'text formatting languages' DCF adds GML tags and on into
XML. Both way behind La Plume(MI) and La
Is IBM DCF significantly different from the publicly available Waterloo Script?
I don't remember if Waterloo Script supports GML.
I do recall that I didn't learn GML until I worked in a shop that used DCF.
I first learned Waterloo Script, in 1976, at the University of Waterloo.
The first two
I know that DocBook has been mentioned in this thread and compared
unfavorably with DCF. I've used both, although I haven't used DCF for many
years.
We recently started using DocBook on a couple of projects, and overall we
were pretty pleased with it.
We were able to generate documentation in
14 matches
Mail list logo
