On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 20:53 +0200, Nicolas wrote: > > - superior typesetting & pdf output > > IMO, the result with texinfo is quite nice:
I never said it is not nice, just that the latex produces better output. > http://www.europephoto.com/info/cinelerra/200610/cinelerra.pdf It is nice indeed. > The .pdf file is generated without any error. ;-) Congratulation! > I think tools available on www.gnu.org are used on a lot of plateform. > Texinfo is 200% stable since several years. Well, it is due to TeX which is stable :-) > Its syntax is quite easy as I said. It's so simple that you don't need > any GUI at all to edit it. Well, latex' syntax is pretty similar, but, still, texinfo is different enough that, if I want to contribute, have to learn another macro package and the format is simple enough that people are using vim/emacs to edit it. I could also say let's use ConTeXt which can produce even better results, but it is not so widely used as LaTeX... > I'm a "vim guy", but for those of you who use Emacs, that (GNU) tool is > perfect for editing texinfo files. I use vim but not for latex. For such stuff I prefer LyX, especially when I need to tweak the output with images/screenshots. > > - easy to use front-end (lyx) with collaboration feature which makes it > > easy for people to join the team > > IMO, people who would like to help maintaining the manual won't get any > problem to edit a text file. In any case, contributing in eg. LyX does not require learning new markup, while latex/texinfo put this requirement on the contributor. > Here's a message I got from Karl Berry who is the official maintainer of > texinfo since 2003, and participated in writing the texinfo official > manual. I asked him some advice about the format to choose. > > "I would encourage you to keep it in Texinfo, because (a) that will make > it easier for you to import changes in the "official" manual, I was thinking that CV manual will be done separately from "official" one and therefore will probably have different structure, labels etc. so importing changes would probably have to fall on copy & paste which is equally easy with latex as well as with texinfo. > and (b) it is lot easier to generate decent html Hmmm, in eg. lyx one just selects Export to HTML and gets output with latex2html (http://www.latex2html.org/) > (and plain text and ...same as above - very simple. > info Why would one need plain text & info output for manual with color images? > and xml) Why XML? > from Texinfo than from LaTeX, Besides that, there is TeX4ht (http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~gurari/TeX4ht/) which converts latex to plethora of formats. > and no harder to generate pdf." True and I see there is not worth to argue about latex vs. texinfo any longer 'cause you are persistent to stay with texinfo. Sincerely, Gour
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
