David Neary wrote:

Carol Spears wrote:

Daniel Egger wrote:

DocBook was written exactly for the purpose we need.

as much as i love gimp, i wonder if someone got their rent paid
from netscape.com for making that my choice regardless. With
everything else being so sensible in gimp, how come i did not get a choice that included lynx or the awesome w3m? did you know
w3m renders images on xterms lately? that means it could render
any screenshots gimp gets of itself for its help docs.

Actually, I'm not sure I see the benefits in not having html as the primary format... Sure, we could go for a format which allows multi-node searching (like info only better), but html docs would have the added benefit of not needing to be local and still being usable. And the user gets to choose what help client they use. And most people have a browser open all the time anyway.

I'm not saying that a custom help browser is a waste of time -
but do we have the time to do it? Surely starting with docbook or
whatever and marking it up to html, with the possibility of doing
funkier stuff later, allows us to have something, quickly?


my layout is aimed first at html and second at LaTeX. I want
a choice of browsers. I think it is easy to make a plugin that
calls from a list of available browsers. i think this discussion is really stupid.

you could actually tuck the source code to the w3m with the
image rendering ability into the documentation and probably
no one would know the difference sizewise, especially if you
insist on all those stupid levels of tags in the layout.

but it is easy for gimp to find the browsers i have installed
and add them to a menu. so i really am not going to be following this thread anymore.

thanks for the time and thought you all spend writing this crap
to the list.


_______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to