Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Roland Mainz wrote: > > AFAIK the same arguments were done more than twenty years ago for the > > X11 documentation. Instead of sticking with a standard format the X11 > > Consortium picked an application-specific format to do most of the X11 > > documentation. Twenty years later these files were simply "blobs of raw > > data" where the applications weren't available anymore (and even if you > > had binaries you needed a license key), the file format documentation > > was incomplete (making it impossible to write a converter) and the > > people who originally wrote the documentation were long retired or > > "gone". At the end all these documents were unuseable, unsalvageable and > > simply "lost" - because twenty years ago someone picked the "hip&&cool > > file format of the month". > > Don't be overly dramatic [snip]
I didn't want to be dramatic, I was trying to reflect the state we had when I was the release manager for the X.org X11R6.8.2 release. Back then it looked quite bad (and I lost touch with the X.org stuff since X11R7.0 and didn't knew yet that you found a way to salvave some of the documents). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;)
