Well, now I understand why my response (a) showed by itself in the browser where I actually *read* most list mail, and (b) elicited no responses: I sent it to IBM-MAIN instead of this list. Doh.
Capps, Joey wrote: >Personally I don't think it's design was to save paper. >I think it was to 'be concise'. >And that is what I think it needs to be. >As for reorganizing it into different chapters, that might be useful. >But we cannot afford to have it lose its concise nature. And it used to only be a couple of hundred pages or so. So while I fundamentally agree with Mr. Capps' stance, that it's not necessarily "broken", I do think the book could use some rework. It's pretty painful to use at times. Let me turn the question around, though: how would a reorg necessarily make it less concise? It's hard to see describing a 1,500-page book as "concise"... Hey, I'd be happier if it just did a page eject before each instruction, and went to single-column format! That would make it longer, but more readable on screens. Hm, is it HTML-ized? If so, that would likely solve both of those requirements...no, wait, it would have the horrible TOC-on-the-left that makes IBM online doc so hard to use. OK, without that, maybe... ...phsiii
