Amen; the cumulative user interface annoyances with info are awful
(and I'm and emacs fan!); but the idea that extensive and in-depth
documentation be organized in a hyper-linked tree with extensive
indexing is good. In fact, it would be just peachy if I could
navigate the info documentation with my web browser. I thought there
was supposed to be a texinfo to html translator, but for some reason
the texinfo documents aren't delivered that way, and it would be a
redundant use of space. An alternative might be a CGI program that
would let the web server translate the .info files into html on the
fly; has anyone written something like that?
- Stephen P. Schaefer
On 21 Aug, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:01:37PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> It should be the opposite: let's move off the obsolete man pages: thay
>> were great in the seventies but today we have far more powerful
>> machines who allow far richer ways of provising information.
>
> That's fine; but info is NOT the way to go. It's an awkward, sadly outdated
> interface.
>
> There is STILL a need for manpage-style documentation. Man pages are
> intended to be brief, concise developer or user notes. You shouldn't
> get theory of design, discussion of performance tradeoffs, etc. in a
> man page; there should be a full document behind man page sets that
> provides that kind of information.
>
> I don't want to wade through reams of material I no longer need once I've
> learned a package or system; I want brief usage reminders (without bloating
> my software.) And I want an intuitive interface; info sux at that.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Dave Ihnat
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Redhat-devel-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
--
Find my public key at http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = E1 B6 97 1B 96 9F A1 D1 77 09 AA 90 4B 0F 91 CC
PGP signature
