On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Fraser Campbell wrote:

On August 27, 2003 12:23 pm, Max Blanco wrote:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90d03_e.htm

I didn't notice...

A .doc is also provided (see http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/download2_E.asp?lang=en&docFile=Statutes/English/90d03_e.doc).

[snip]

Currently you have loads of options to choose from, these are the ones that I have installed:

I prefer antiword myself, but it doesn't do tables. But that's not my point.

If the .doc is what you find objectionable what is your preference, pdf?

[snip]

... especially since they are providing html (I assume that you didn't notice it).

You corrected me, and thanks for that. I find both .doc and .pdf objectionable, for the reason that they mask behind machine language what ought to be plain text. I suppose ascii-->english translators to be universal. I don't suppose doc-->english to be universal, nor pdf-->english. html-->english is my next choice, which I hadn't seen. -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml