Re: HTML to PS: No netscape here

[ed . arthur]

> 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.

possibly my last mail before vaca.

don't ge me wrong, i use linux at work on many many servers
but it was too much of a chore at home to be a system manager.

perl does suck but i've been writing a lot in it lately.

anyway, get perl installed and use that script, how bad could it be?

/ed