On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 10:09:30PM -0500, Michael Pobega wrote: > 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.) >
Pdf can have internal links as well as a table of contents that one can click on. On the other hand, one needs X to read it and a postscript capable printer to print it (yes I know...). HTML can be read with lynx or mc as long as it doesn't have pictures and has the advantage that it has links to click through a document to what one wants. Plain text, is, well, plain text. So if we go with plain text +/- simple html, we need a home for it and a way to work on it. Isn't it ironic that here we are fitzing around trying to set up a documentation method when that is what UNIX was designed to do as its primary role when it was invented? Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
