TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: PDF vs HTML (Act II) From:David Blyth <dblyth -at- QUALCOMM -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:03:28 -0700
>You should at least change this to "David pointed out (incorrectly) that
>Netscape plug-ins...." When I added the Shockwave plug-in to the Netscape
>beta I was running, I had to nearly double the maximum RAM partition it
>was given on my system. All the plug-ins add RAM costs to Netscape.
Perhaps I misunderstood what Netscape told me - which was that you get
to some fixed point of RAM and won't need more, despite the number of
plug-ins you have. Plug-ins are definitely cheaper than running helpers.
Is this true of Acrobat?
You didn't respond to the seamlessness issue. Do you conceed this point?
(Heck, you never know until you ask...)
>And what's the guarantee that anyone besides Netscape's dropping
>marketshare will be able to see any of those hypothetically available
>features? Remember, Netscape costs money and MS Explorer is given away for
>free.
1) MS Explorer 3.0 uses all of the same plug-in technology. If MS's
Market share somehow zooms to (say) a whopping 30%, I'll just
substitute "Explorer" for "Netscape" and maintain the same argument.
2) Last I checked (Saturday), Netscape's Internet Browser Market share had
dropped a whole 1% - dragged all the way down to 78%. Check out
"Web trends" at www.interse.com. Netscape does not appear to be worried.
3) Both browsers (Navigator 2.0 and Explorer 3.0) are clients. Many of
the malleable document trends are either server oriented, or occur in
between the two - on the Net.
Joyce Flaherty's post (on another subject) states it well:
"I think we are coming full circle to a time when writers
will write and information will be available online in an
information database which will drive the publication process."
Perhaps Joyce meant something different, but it sounds pretty malleable
to me.
> 1) The future of technical communication depends on dynamic (malleable)
> information display
>"The future of *some* technical communication..."
Then our disagreement revolves around to what _extent_ the future of
technical communication revolves around malleable information display.
Do we agree on this much?
There's undoubtedly more to discuss, but I'll leave it at this for now...
Good to talk to you again.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post Message: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Get Commands: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "help" in body.
Unsubscribe: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "signoff TECHWR-L"
Listowner: ejray -at- ionet -dot- net
