Re: publishing a paper for peer review

Ian Goldberg (iang@cs.berkeley.edu)
9 Jun 1998 22:55:03 GMT

• Next message: bill.stewart@pobox.com: "RE: publishing a paper for peer review"
• Previous message: Bill Stewart: "CYPHERPUNKS INVADE BERKELEY! June 98 Physical Meeting Announcement"
• Next in thread: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: publishing a paper for peer review"
• Reply: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: publishing a paper for peer review"
• Reply: mgraffam@mhv.net: "Re: publishing a paper for peer review"

In article <37A1271F2968D111BDC900A0C90644FA37AB91@pro3.catalystwms.com>,
John Washburn <jwashbur@mke.catalystwms.com> wrote:
>I was thinking to publish the paper in RTF format. This seems to be the
>lowest common denominator for rich text without getting into the MIME wars.
>If ther is a better format to publish the text in let me know.

Any of Postscript, PDF, or HTML would be better than RTF. Although
technically, RTF is an open standard(*), I don't know of any RTF viewers
for non-Microsoft platforms. URLs to source would be welcome if I'm
mistaken.

   - Ian

(*) Funnily enough, at one point when I checked this out, Microsoft was
    distributing the documentation for RTF format, but the documentation
    itself was only available in Word format...

• Next message: bill.stewart@pobox.com: "RE: publishing a paper for peer review"
• Previous message: Bill Stewart: "CYPHERPUNKS INVADE BERKELEY! June 98 Physical Meeting Announcement"
• Next in thread: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: publishing a paper for peer review"
• Reply: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: publishing a paper for peer review"
• Reply: mgraffam@mhv.net: "Re: publishing a paper for peer review"