Ian Jackson:
> > I'm not certain that distributing HTML with the packages and other formats
> > separately is a good idea. I think it might be a better idea to continue
> > as now and use on-line conversions from man and Info to HTML. Pre-converted
> > HTML should be distributed as separate package
Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Documentation formats "):
...
> I'm not certain that distributing HTML with the packages and other formats
> separately is a good idea. I think it might be a better idea to continue
> as now and use on-line conversions from man and Info to HT
Mark Eichin writes ("Re: Documentation formats"):
> if we standardize the names for the alternate formats, can we also
> have, for each format foo, a virtual foo-viewer package, and include
> it in the dependencies? (That will, as a side effect, make it easier
> to deter
Mark Eichin writes ("Re: Documentation formats"):
> [Ian asked:]
> > (Is texi2html any good?)
>
> http://www.cygnus.com/ (and I'm sure other places) has texi2html'ed
> versions of gnu compiler-related tools, if you want a quick look at
> them.
Thanks. They do look reasonable.
Ian.
I'm not certain that distributing HTML with the packages and other formats
separately is a good idea. I think it might be a better idea to continue
as now and use on-line conversions from man and Info to HTML. Pre-converted
HTML should be distributed as separate packages.
Debiandoc (I really need
Ian Jackson:
> Do we start distributing Texinfo-generated HTML instead ? [...]
> Or do we do some kind of display-time conversion from info to HTML ?
I'd suggest both. texi2html seems to do a nicer job than info2www,
but we shouldn't require people to install both HTML and Info versions
on sites
> Or do we do some kind of display-time conversion from info to HTML ?
This is probably best.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Clinton isn't perfect, but I like him a lot more than Dole.
Please register to vote, and vote for Democrats.
Bruce Perens AB6YM [EMAIL PROTECT
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Documentation formats"):
> From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The thing is that I think we need to be able to distribute other
> > [documentation] end-products [than HTML].
...
> Do you have a proposal?
...
My initial proposal is
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Documentation formats"):
...
> The unification of Debian documentation will be carried out via
> HTML. You should not consider the merits of a particular HTML viewer,
> or even the weight of the best of our existing HTTP servers. These things
> will
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Documentation formats"):
> From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The thing is that I think we need to be able to distribute other
> > [documentation] end-products [than HTML].
> > HTML is bad for printing, for example, and not
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The thing is that I think we need to be able to distribute other
> [documentation] end-products [than HTML].
> HTML is bad for printing, for example, and not ideal
> if you have a slow machine. Choice is a good thing.
Do you have a proposal? I'm not trying t
Rob Browning writes:
> Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't think we have free software packaged to do full text searches.
> > We have glimpse and ferret, neither of which is free. There's something
> > that is part of freeWais, but I haven't looked at it yet. Someone with
> >
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Documentation formats"):
> I am aware of your efforts with linuxdoc.sgml, and I think it's important
> to make it clear that HTML is only the end-product. It's fine to encourage
> people to use linuxdoc as a source language.
Err, yes, e
Ian,
I am aware of your efforts with linuxdoc.sgml, and I think it's important
to make it clear that HTML is only the end-product. It's fine to encourage
people to use linuxdoc as a source language.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens:
> The unification of Debian documentation will be carried out via HTML.
I assume the unification won't mean that the native formats aren't
supported -- they _do_ have benefits.
That said, I fully agree with choosing HTML. Debiandoc, supports on-line
conversions to HTML from man an
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens)
> The unification of Debian documentation will be carried out via
> HTML.
To clarify the above, I don't care what the SOURCE format of the document
is, as long as you can _convert_ it to HTML for display. SGML, info, man,
etc. are just fine, as long as we can
Someone:
> IMHO info is a great format.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
> Actually, I have just about the same problems with info that you
> have with lynx - it's ugly, it has a *really* arcane user interface.
*** Project Leader Fiat Power On ***
The unification of Debian documentation
> "LW" == Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
LW> Ian Jackson (after my deletions):
>> * GNU Texinfo ... HTML.
>> * The Linux FAQ ... HTML ...
>> * The Linux HOWTOs ... HTML ...
>> * My new dpkg manuals ... HTML ...
>> * The Perl documentation ... HTML
LW> I think I see a trend here. Wh
Ian Jackson (after my deletions):
> * GNU Texinfo ... HTML.
> * The Linux FAQ ... HTML ...
> * The Linux HOWTOs ... HTML ...
> * My new dpkg manuals ... HTML ...
> * The Perl documentation ... HTML
I think I see a trend here. While HTML is not the perfect format (e.g.,
it lacks the navigation
> Options for our policy include:
> 1. Specify one or two particular preferred target formats and
> distribute those. Leave the source in the source package. So far
> we have done this with documentation in Texinfo - we leave the
> .texi files in the source package and distribute on
20 matches
Mail list logo
