On 24 February 2011 03:55, Philip Olson <phi...@roshambo.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > As a side note, I think the output file should be renamed to > php_manual_notes_*.chm instead of the current php_enhanced_manual_*.chm for a > few reasons: > > - It better describes the file > - It's closer to the old name > - It's similar to the standard php_manual_*.chm > > Also, I implemented it into svn/web/php/trunk by simply adding '(with user > notes)' to the CHM download description, so: > > - HTML Help file > - HTML Help file (with user notes) > > Also, while the PhD name "EnhancedCHM" is true, I prefer NotesCHM because > that's all it does. And if something crazy happens in the future with > alternative chm options, I imagine we'll still want to offer a simple chm > with notes. > > Regards, > Philip > >
There is a difference between the new "enhancedCHM" and the old style extended chm / xchm. With the new format, the notes are integrated into the pages with the single CHM file. In the old style, the manual and notes were separate CHM files, so, potentially, one could have the manual and later download the notes if required. Now that we have a "with notes" manual (as distinct to a "just notes" manual), is it worth spending any time on re-implementing the old style 2 CHM solution? I'm happy with the new "with notes" solution but if there is a need/requirement for the old style 2 CHM download, then that could be done. This would only be worthwhile if the notes CHM was built more frequently (the all.bz2 is produced every 2 hours) - seems like a lot of effort for not a huge gain except for download size of the "with notes" solution. -- Richard Quadling Twitter : EE : Zend @RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY
