On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > > > Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there > > > > is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form. > > > > > > Not really; it's just that the compiled form is often transient. > > > > How is this different from documentation? Most people don't read > > HTML or SGML directly, they use an interpreter. > > The difference being that HTML or SGML *can* be read reasonably easy > without an interpreter. While I will accept that there may be people who > are able to read a compiled binary by doing something like 'cat > /usr/bin/foo', I suspect that most people on this planet are not able to > do so. The same is not true for HTML or SGML.
I don't understand what analogy you're using here. John Goerzen was comparing documentation to interpreted scripts and I was responding to that. Now you're taking my response and talking about compiled programs. If you want to do that, then the equivalent from the documentation world would be a PDF file. Most people don't read those without an interpreter. (Interpreters of documentation languages are normally called renderers, but the essence of their task is the same. And if you've ever seen a VT100 terminal play Towers of Hanoi, you'll know what I mean.) Richard Braakman
