Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > So if we go with the wiki, we (or at least I) have to learn a new markup > language and resign ourselves that the work can't be used in any other > work. If we go with another format, it needs a home and we (or at least > I) have to learn a new markup language. Unless, of course we don't need > html and can do with pdf, ps, and plain text. If so, does anyone other > than me use Lout? > > I wonder if the frustration over all this lack of a documentation > infrastructure is a good reason why the documentation isn't as easy to > find as we seem to think it should be? > > Doug. > The way I see it all that we'll need is HTML, PDF, and plain text. Plain text is the easiest to read through a terminal window, and it should be how we write the original documentation. Once we finish a full plain text version we can worry about converting it to other formats.
HTML is nice for viewing over the internet, and whenever possible I prefer HTML over PDF. Especially since you can tie URLs in HTML to other points on the page, so that you can link someone back and forth throughout a single page quickly and easily. PDF is good for it's sleekness really, I know nothing about the PDF format so I'm going to completely leave this in someone else's hands. But since PDF supports images, why don't we add in a few images for the PDF version? (Maybe the HTML version, but I really do think that this project should be as text based as possible.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
