Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Guy> Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Compressed html changelogs:
>
> Guy> dwww deals transparently with compressed html files. Why can't
> Guy> html changelogs be compressed then?
>
> Actually, so can lynx, MOzilla, netscape, and w3. I take back
> my objection. I did not realize that all the html browsers too
> transparently handle gzipped files
Oh... then this is a new thing :) I maintain several packages that
install their html documentation uncompressed, because compressed
html was useless. I imagine I'm not the only one.
Section 5.3 says this:
Any additional documentation that comes with the package can be
installed at the discretion of the package maintainer. Text
documentation should be installed in a directory `/usr/doc/<package>',
where <package> is the name of the package, and compressed with `gzip
-9' unless it is small.
Note that it says "text documentation", perhaps because that gzips
better than for example jpegs. That does not say what to do with
non-text documentation, and it leaves intermediate formats (such as
tex, html, ps) unspecified. I think this paragraph should be
rewritten, but I have no specific ideas on how to rewrite it.
Hmm, I just did some testing, at at least lynx won't follow a link to
a ".html" url if there is only a ".html.gz" file. So compressing a
directory of html files will break all its internal links.
Richard Braakman
