On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 04:27 -0400, Marc Paré wrote: > Le 2011-06-23 02:30, David Nelson a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > My 2 cents would be that the best format for guides is .odt, plus a > > publication of the user-ready version in PDF. > > > > I don't think an HTML version would really be a useful idea. > > > > -- > > David Nelson > > > I will chime in as well. I would rather see the ODF versions first and > the .pdf only if needed. We are, after all, telling people that we have > the best office suite on earth, so let's prove it! It does work!. I > would even go as far as not publishing any .pdf versions. People needing > documentation will have LibreOffice to read the ODF files. I would only > supply .pdf files if it involved anything with the installation of > LibreOffice. > > Cheers > > Marc > > -- > Marc Paré > http://www.parEntreprise.com > >
I agree with ODF formats for our documentation and then other versions as needed latter. When they are made, when can state the where saved/exported for the LO, plugging some of the other capabilities of LO. I would not use htiml unless someone cleans up the code. Most program generated html I have seen is very difficult to follow, debug, and maintain without someone cleaning it up. Ofteh I have found myself redoing the pages with hand coding only. -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
