"Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes: > The problem is that this is often specifically what is *not* sought by > those who are looking for manpages. What's wanted is a short, concise, > but illustrative reference providing: > > - A functional description of the command. > > - A synopsis of all options and/or switches for the command. > > - EXAMPLES!!! Examples of (typical) usage are essential. > > - Additional sections: FILES, SEE ALSO, BUGS, and AUTHOR, typically. > > There is a utility to convert the man page equivalent portion of a > typical info page to something resembling manpage format. > > Personally, I'd strongly recommend that the GNU project revisit the > issue of info pages altogether. They're not popular, they don't > adequately replace man pages, and there is a far more successful and > ubiquitous hypertext model (HTML) in use now. Moreover, the standard > info navigation keybindings (and even the simplified bindings offered by > tools such as pinfo) are neither ubiquitous, corrospondent to other SW > tools (emacs excepted), nor self evident.
I also agree. I think what bothers me most about info pages is that they often read like books. They're usually arranged in a format resembling chapters covering each topic in thorough detail. This is fine if I want to read a book about Emacs, for example, but sucks if I just want a quick reference for a command line switch or something. It seems to me that GNU has nothing to lose and plenty to gain by maintaining man pages. Of course man pages can't replace a true documentation system like info, but a good man page is extremely useful. Nice post Karsten. -- Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>