On 20/04/2013 15:11, Marco van de Voort wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:53:59AM +0100, Lukasz Sokol wrote: > > ( very old message, ran into it by accident while searching for something > else) > >> If the point of CHM is that they use less disk space than unpacked HTML, >> (yeah, I see the point : lcl.chm 11.577MB, fcl.chm 1.968MB, vs unpacked >> HTML files that use 187MB) then I'd include this information somewhere >> on the wiki... > > There are multiple ways in which chms are superior to the raw material: > > - Primarily they are compressed, and can be used as such (html decompression > on plain dos can take hours) > - Indexing, TOC and search is better. > - cross package hyperlinking is file position independent. IOW FPC and LCL > helpfiles don't have to be in the same directory to link to eachother > (plain html simply does ../<packagename> for all unresolved links) > - The code to use the helpfile is filesystem independent. In the past quite > often subtle filesystem related bugs (like wrong directory separator) > came to light only after release(*) > > (*) specially on Dos. Dos-under-Windows is more lenient than standalone dos. > > Note that the html inside the CHM is 99% the same, but not entirely. Using > one base html for both is not really practical atm. All references between > packages would break. > > ACK, thanks for the info.
Lukasz -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
