Ian Jackson:
I'm not certain that distributing HTML with the packages and other formats
separately is a good idea. I think it might be a better idea to continue
as now and use on-line conversions from man and Info to HTML. Pre-converted
HTML should be distributed as separate packages.
Lars Wirzenius writes (Re: Documentation formats ):
...
I'm not certain that distributing HTML with the packages and other formats
separately is a good idea. I think it might be a better idea to continue
as now and use on-line conversions from man and Info to HTML. Pre-converted
HTML should
Mark Eichin writes (Re: Documentation formats):
[Ian asked:]
(Is texi2html any good?)
http://www.cygnus.com/ (and I'm sure other places) has texi2html'ed
versions of gnu compiler-related tools, if you want a quick look at
them.
Thanks. They do look reasonable.
Ian.
Mark Eichin writes (Re: Documentation formats):
if we standardize the names for the alternate formats, can we also
have, for each format foo, a virtual foo-viewer package, and include
it in the dependencies? (That will, as a side effect, make it easier
to determine which formats are supported
Or do we do some kind of display-time conversion from info to HTML ?
This is probably best.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Clinton isn't perfect, but I like him a lot more than Dole.
Please register to vote, and vote for Democrats.
Bruce Perens AB6YM [EMAIL
Bruce Perens writes (Re: Documentation formats):
From: Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The thing is that I think we need to be able to distribute other
[documentation] end-products [than HTML].
HTML is bad for printing, for example, and not ideal
if you have a slow machine. Choice
Bruce Perens writes (Re: Documentation formats):
...
The unification of Debian documentation will be carried out via
HTML. You should not consider the merits of a particular HTML viewer,
or even the weight of the best of our existing HTTP servers. These things
will change with time
Bruce Perens writes (Re: Documentation formats):
From: Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The thing is that I think we need to be able to distribute other
[documentation] end-products [than HTML].
...
Do you have a proposal?
...
My initial proposal is as follows:
If it's available we
From: Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The thing is that I think we need to be able to distribute other
[documentation] end-products [than HTML].
HTML is bad for printing, for example, and not ideal
if you have a slow machine. Choice is a good thing.
Do you have a proposal? I'm not trying to
Ian,
I am aware of your efforts with linuxdoc.sgml, and I think it's important
to make it clear that HTML is only the end-product. It's fine to encourage
people to use linuxdoc as a source language.
Thanks
Bruce
Rob Browning writes:
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think we have free software packaged to do full text searches.
We have glimpse and ferret, neither of which is free. There's something
that is part of freeWais, but I haven't looked at it yet. Someone with
the time
Someone:
IMHO info is a great format.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
Actually, I have just about the same problems with info that you
have with lynx - it's ugly, it has a *really* arcane user interface.
*** Project Leader Fiat Power On ***
The unification of Debian documentation
Bruce Perens:
The unification of Debian documentation will be carried out via HTML.
I assume the unification won't mean that the native formats aren't
supported -- they _do_ have benefits.
That said, I fully agree with choosing HTML. Debiandoc, supports on-line
conversions to HTML from man
I've just added the subsection below to the draft policy manual.
Bruce, tell me if you want me to say something different.
I'd like to come up with some rather more formal way of distributing
our different documentation formats. Perhaps we should create a new
subdirectory of the FTP site
LW == Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LW Ian Jackson (after my deletions):
* GNU Texinfo ... HTML.
* The Linux FAQ ... HTML ...
* The Linux HOWTOs ... HTML ...
* My new dpkg manuals ... HTML ...
* The Perl documentation ... HTML
LW I think I see a trend here. While HTML is not the
).
* The Perl documentation can be converted to HTML, plain text,
manpage source (hence overstruck text and PostScript) and LaTeX
(hence DVI and large PostScript).
We need to decide which documentation formats we wish to distribute,
and how to manage their display. Obviously we can't distribute all
Ian Jackson (after my deletions):
* GNU Texinfo ... HTML.
* The Linux FAQ ... HTML ...
* The Linux HOWTOs ... HTML ...
* My new dpkg manuals ... HTML ...
* The Perl documentation ... HTML
I think I see a trend here. While HTML is not the perfect format (e.g.,
it lacks the navigation
Options for our policy include:
1. Specify one or two particular preferred target formats and
distribute those. Leave the source in the source package. So far
we have done this with documentation in Texinfo - we leave the
.texi files in the source package and distribute only
18 matches
Mail list logo
