Thus spake Lonnie Mullenix on Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 08:42:46PM -0600: > Only thing I would add is that it would be really nice to be able to get > this to print properly.
Do you mean you can't print the HTML properly (old news... :), or that you can't print the PostScript docs ? > I broke my Debian box yesterday playing around with a couple of > testing/unstable packages, so I'm stuck on this NT box for a few > days. Have a Winprinter too, so that is a pita, but I'll live with for the > time being. > > So, printable would be good. The printable version has always been not-quite-as-good as the HTML version. That's a fact. I'm working on switching to XML, so if FO is more customizable than dsssl, we might improve things a bit. The bad thing is that the tarballs on the website are *really* old, and last time I checked (Friday) DocBook's dsssl and JadeTeX were playing games, so I couldn't get any ps, dvi, rtf,... output. Can't build a Debian package, and can't build a printable tarball... :-( However your suggestion is a good one, and we'll add a 'Printable Version' column as soon as this mess is sorted out. BTW, does everyone agree that PDF would be a better choice for an online printable version ? (Knowing that a number of people will print this on disreputable systems that have no postscript support :) (Though I intend to keep postscript for the .deb) Bye, Romain -- There is a 20% chance of tomorrow.
