Re: HTML to PS: No netscape here

[TBlittlefoot]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 05:13:54PM +0000, address@hidden wrote:
> > You know, Ed, HTML-to-PS is the heart of this, to my mind.
> > 
> > It's the current universal markup language and can be extremely simple
> > to extremely complex.
> > 
> > I write HTML source with vanilla vi...
> > 
> > You only need to do text and static graphics. Sound and video, etc, 
> > obviously
> > don't translate to paper.
> > 
> > Any thoughts?
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> >     PLEASE mail me in PLAIN TEXT ----------- THANK YOU 
>
> The HTML rendering engines in web browsers are quite complex.
> The concept of delegating in a2ps is a good choice in my mind.

I agree. But the docs/config files need to include directions
for *all* browsers currently in use by any significant number
of people.

> 
> That being said, have you looked at this link:
> 
> http://user.it.uu.se/~jan/html2ps.html
> 

Yes. Don't like perl. Don't have it on my box.

Perhaps we could 'just' convert that to C....

Seriously. There may even be a utility that does that.

> You want the final output in postscript, not the actual HTML
> code highlighted, right?
> 

I want the *.ps file to look like the original webpage does in
a browser when printed or previewed.


> I'm surprised people still use vi. 

Millions.

> I'm an emacs man myself.

Nobody's perfect.

:-))

> I can't live without color highlighting/multiple buffers/etc.

I guess I can.


> And no I don't want vim!  :-)
> 

Me neither!


> /Ed
> 
> 

Tom

-- 
    PLEASE mail me in PLAIN TEXT ----------- THANK YOU