On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:20 PM, rgheck<rgh...@bobjweil.com> wrote: > But that is precisely the point: We're not talking about four extra entries. > We're not going to do something special for HTML here, as much as you would > apparently like us to do so.
Actually I was not waiting for you to do it; I was volunteering to do it myself. Note the difference. > This is a matter of principle, and I can't for > the life of me seeing us abandoning it, and in any event Jurgen is strongly > committed to this, and he's release manager. So if we are going to list > everything, then we are going to list everything, and then there will be a > LOT more entries. (We check for as many programs as we know about for every > format we know about, and we'll check for more if someone tells us about a > new one.) That makes for a badly cluttered menu, one where you can't find > what you need, let alone what you want. It's already too cluttered with > duplicate mechanisms for single output formats. I just don't think that principles should always trump common sense. Or that all formats are born equal. > Perhaps some are. Not "perhaps"; we know that some people are indeed asking for different HTML outputs. > Perhaps most people don't give a fly what converter is > used, as long as it gets the job done, and they'll be confused by having > five options for HTML output (as people are often confused by having three > options for PDF output). PDF converters generally yield better results than HTML, since the formats are similar and therefore conversion is much more straightforward. > What's more, the people who are dying to see all > five options can put them there, as I have said before. So what's the big > deal? That, instead of configuring it by hand, we would like the machine to do the work for us since it already knows all the quirks of those tools. But whatever, let us see where Jürgen's implementation takes us. Alex.
