In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Santiago> The purpose of shipping the docs in binary packages is to Santiago> made them available to be read, not to be printed.
> And the purpose of the proposed change to Policy is that the > documentation be available in a format amenable to further > manipulation, so that it may be coaxed into formats more to the > liking of the user, or to be printed (I still prefer reading long > documents on paper) Yes yes yes yes. Source format is what someone is going to want, say, if they feel like correcting a document and submitting a patch. Or adapting the document for some other (unforseen purposes). And how absurd it would be if someone asked, 'how do I print /usr/doc/foo/blah.ps.gz' and we say, 'oh, /usr/doc is for viewing, not for printing'. Santiago> Do you propose that .sgml replaces .html as our preferred Santiago> documentation format in the long run? > Nope, nothing as radical as that. I just propose that of the > primary (the preferred for for modification) happens to be sgml (or > texi, or nroff, or whatever), then that be also available in *some* > .deb package . I agree, although I think it should be a "should" rather than a "must". .....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
