Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Saturday, 24 February 2018 at 11:23:17 UTC, notna wrote: On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:32:05 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote: On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a website shipped with a binary

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:32:05 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote: On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a website shipped with a binary release? For offline browsing, Windows and Linux users can use

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Sunday, 18 February 2018 at 21:44:54 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote: El 17/02/18 a les 22:19, Manu via Digitalmars-d ha escrit: I like the CHM docs. I have encountered the same maintenance problem before, where build infra is linux based, and the CHM docs need a windows machine to build... I

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

El 17/02/18 a les 22:19, Manu via Digitalmars-d ha escrit: > I like the CHM docs. > I have encountered the same maintenance problem before, where build infra is > linux based, and the CHM docs need a windows machine to build... I solved > this problem by building the CHM via WINE ;) > Maybe this

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Sunday, 18 February 2018 at 21:37:01 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Yes might be an option, but I have little experience with Wine, and adding more complexity to an already complex tool seems problematic. We obviously do build releases on Windows (VirtualBox) and also have Windows CIs, but

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Sunday, 18 February 2018 at 21:31:48 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: The essence here is that while dman might be useful, it's foundation is very complex and fragile, using ddoc JSON macros :o (https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/blob/cb44110267d0b5d2e139909c47fa00924ac1cb24/chm-nav.dd) Minor

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 02/17/2018 10:19 PM, Manu wrote: > I like the CHM docs. > I have encountered the same maintenance problem before, where build infra > is linux based, and the CHM docs need a windows machine to build... I > solved this problem by building the CHM via WINE ;) > Maybe this is a possible solution?

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 02/18/2018 02:05 AM, Walter Bright wrote: > On 2/17/2018 7:04 AM, Martin Nowak wrote: >> Let's pull the plug, I think everybody agrees that we have more >> important issues than maintaining d.chm and dman (which hasn't been >> shipped since 2.076 anyhow). >> Consider both tools as offered for

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 18 February 2018 at 12:28, Martin Nowak wrote: > It should be equally trivial to setup an appveyor.yml task for dlang.org > that builds > a chm file for any git tag. > That's an even better idea! I expect there is scripting in place to build the doc, since some machinery must

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 18 February 2018 at 05:26, Cym13 via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Saturday, 17 February 2018 at 21:23:25 UTC, Manu wrote: > >> Wait, what? You asked if people used them, found that they did, then >> pulled >> the plug anyway? O_o >> Try running WINE on the build

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Saturday, 17 February 2018 at 21:23:25 UTC, Manu wrote: Wait, what? You asked if people used them, found that they did, then pulled the plug anyway? O_o Try running WINE on the build machine... it's trivial to setup. Note the 2-year gap. I guess this decision is based off low interest

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 17 February 2018 at 18:32, Danni Coy wrote: > On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Manu wrote: > >> On 17 February 2018 at 16:52, Danni Coy wrote: >> >>> Is the reason for favouring chm as a format that it fits in with the >>>

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Saturday, 17 February 2018 at 21:23:25 UTC, Manu wrote: On 17 February 2018 at 07:04, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: [...] Wait, what? You asked if people used them, found that they did, then pulled the plug anyway? O_o Try running WINE on the

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Manu wrote: > On 17 February 2018 at 16:52, Danni Coy wrote: > >> Is the reason for favouring chm as a format that it fits in with the >> visual studio ecosystem better? >> Having used both pdf and chm help on Linux I

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 17 February 2018 at 16:52, Danni Coy wrote: > Is the reason for favouring chm as a format that it fits in with the > visual studio ecosystem better? > Having used both pdf and chm help on Linux I don't see a huge amount of > difference between competent reading

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 2/17/2018 7:04 AM, Martin Nowak wrote: Let's pull the plug, I think everybody agrees that we have more important issues than maintaining d.chm and dman (which hasn't been shipped since 2.076 anyhow). Consider both tools as offered for adoption (as an external service or download).

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

Is the reason for favouring chm as a format that it fits in with the visual studio ecosystem better? Having used both pdf and chm help on Linux I don't see a huge amount of difference between competent reading applications. On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d <

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 17 February 2018 at 07:04, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: > >> It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files. >> We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 16 June 2016 at 06:22, Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > I still use CHM document as it is absolutely the best solution compared to >> anything else. I think it is a mistake to compare CHM with PDF... They are >> made for different things... >> > > I forgot

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 15 June 2016 at 03:58, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files. > We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm > generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an index (from

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files. We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an index (from a json generated via ddoc) and

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 11:54:31 UTC, captaindet wrote: It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files. ... So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a website shipped with a binary release? i am very glad the chm file exists whenever i am not

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

What's the main difference between it and just pointing your browser at the downloaded html files? Search and index? Well, seach and index are not the only operations you need. One of the common operation with every CHM viewer is to bookmark something for an example. I've just checked the

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 13:18:23 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote: I still use CHM document as it is absolutely the best solution compared to anything else. What's the main difference between it and just pointing your browser at the downloaded html files? Search and index?

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:32:05 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote: On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a website shipped with a binary release? For offline browsing, Windows and Linux users can use

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 17/06/2016 1:22 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote: I still use CHM document as it is absolutely the best solution compared to anything else. I think it is a mistake to compare CHM with PDF... They are made for different things... I forgot to mention - I use CHM on Linux. It is not my fault that

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

I still use CHM document as it is absolutely the best solution compared to anything else. I think it is a mistake to compare CHM with PDF... They are made for different things... I forgot to mention - I use CHM on Linux. It is not my fault that opensource community could not come up with a

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files. We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an index (from a json generated via ddoc) and

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 11:04:48 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:32:05 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote: For offline browsing, Windows and Linux users can use Zeal [1] which is FOSS, and macOS users can use Dash[2], which is free as in beer. Both of which can use this D

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:32:05 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote: On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a website shipped with a binary release? For offline browsing, Windows and Linux users can use

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a website shipped with a binary release? For offline browsing, Windows and Linux users can use Zeal [1] which is FOSS, and macOS users can use Dash[2], which is

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a website shipped with a binary release? i use chm doc - it easy integrates with ide

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files. We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an index (from a json generated via ddoc) and

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files. I didn't know this was a thing. It's cool, but if it is a big inconvenience, then I don't think it needs to be included. I suggest just providing a way for people

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 16/06/2016 12:57 AM, captaindet wrote: On 2016-06-16 00:29, rikki cattermole wrote: Honestly? I read the source for Phobos even with a internet connection quite often. So having it not included isn't an issue there, but spec is. real programmers do ... well, i do sometimes too. but i

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 2016-06-16 00:29, rikki cattermole wrote: Honestly? I read the source for Phobos even with a internet connection quite often. So having it not included isn't an issue there, but spec is. real programmers do ... well, i do sometimes too. but i rather regard myself as an average user, while

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 16/06/2016 12:04 AM, captaindet wrote: As long as pdf is still being generated I see no reason to not drop it. Cost vs benefit. not sure what pdf you are referring to. https://dlang.org/dlangspec.pdf ? - this is only the language spec. the chm contains the whole website incl phobos

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

As long as pdf is still being generated I see no reason to not drop it. Cost vs benefit. not sure what pdf you are referring to. https://dlang.org/dlangspec.pdf ? - this is only the language spec. the chm contains the whole website incl phobos documentation, compiler options, articles and

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files. ... So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a website shipped with a binary release? i am very glad the chm file exists whenever i am not online, e.g. on a plane or train (free wifi is not a given

Re: Anybody still using the chm docs

On 15/06/2016 10:58 PM, Martin Nowak wrote: It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files. We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an index (from a json generated via ddoc) and copy the html files. So

Anybody still using the chm docs

It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files. We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an index (from a json generated via ddoc) and copy the html files. So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really