On Sun, 2005-12-04 at 10:55 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > Le samedi 03 décembre 2005 à 12:42 +0000, Matthew East a écrit : > > On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 08:57 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Le vendredi 02 décembre 2005 à 17:14 +0000, Matthew East a écrit :
> > > > * Greater loading speed (this is the killer for me) - Yelp renders in > > > > html, and therefore converts xml to html using its own stylesheets when > > > > you load a document. The time it takes to load pages from xml in yelp is > > > > probably enough to put the user off the help entirely! If we ship html, > > > > the xml->html conversion is undergone in the build process, which means > > > > that the document opens instantly. > > > > > > Is the speed loading difference important? > > > > I think it is: slow loading static help pages are a turn off for (at > > least some) users, those users will go on irc or the forum. If > > everything else is equal and the alternatives are (a) fast, or (b) slow, > > then I would obviously go with (a) :) > > I agree that slow loading is not good. But can we have some figures? Is > it that slow? :-) Yes: just try it. Both formats are in the dapper package. > > > > * minor advantages - same format as kubuntu docs, we can put the same > > > > format on help.ubuntu.com as we put in the distribution. > > > > > > I think we can put the xml files on the website. Or we can simply > > > convert them in html, it's not that hard :-) > > > > Most web browsers that I know don't read xml. We currently convert them > > to html [1], [2], and [3], that was my point. > > Err... A search for "mozilla xml" gives me > See http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2000/03/29/tutorial/ Well, try opening an xml document in your web browser. The ones I have installed (epiphany, firefox) don't read it out of the box. > > [3] http://help.ubuntu.com > > > > > The best option to me would be to go with xml, but if it's too > > > difficult, switch to html 2 months before the release, eg. > > > > You didn't bring any reasons in favour of shipping in xml? Why do you > > prefer that? > > Well, xml is more generic. If we keep xml, we can do more things with > the installed files. If we go with html, you'll be sure that you will > just display it the way it is and you won't do anything else with it. What do you envisage doing with the xml in the installed system? I should clarify: we write the documents in xml, so we have the flexibility to do anything with those files in the build process. I really can't see a single thing that we'd want to do with the xml in the _installed system_. Matt -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-desktop mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
