).
* The Perl documentation can be converted to HTML, plain text,
manpage source (hence overstruck text and PostScript) and LaTeX
(hence DVI and large PostScript).
We need to decide which documentation formats we wish to distribute,
and how to manage their display. Obviously we can't distribut
I've just added the subsection below to the draft policy manual.
Bruce, tell me if you want me to say something different.
I'd like to come up with some rather more formal way of distributing
our different documentation formats. Perhaps we should create a new
subdirectory of the FT
Ian Jackson (after my deletions):
> * GNU Texinfo ... HTML.
> * The Linux FAQ ... HTML ...
> * The Linux HOWTOs ... HTML ...
> * My new dpkg manuals ... HTML ...
> * The Perl documentation ... HTML
I think I see a trend here. While HTML is not the perfect format (e.g.,
it lacks the navigation
> Options for our policy include:
> 1. Specify one or two particular preferred target formats and
> distribute those. Leave the source in the source package. So far
> we have done this with documentation in Texinfo - we leave the
> .texi files in the source package and distribute on
> "LW" == Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
LW> Ian Jackson (after my deletions):
>> * GNU Texinfo ... HTML.
>> * The Linux FAQ ... HTML ...
>> * The Linux HOWTOs ... HTML ...
>> * My new dpkg manuals ... HTML ...
>> * The Perl documentation ... HTML
LW> I think I see a trend here. Wh
Someone:
> IMHO info is a great format.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
> Actually, I have just about the same problems with info that you
> have with lynx - it's ugly, it has a *really* arcane user interface.
*** Project Leader Fiat Power On ***
The unification of Debian documentation
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens)
> The unification of Debian documentation will be carried out via
> HTML.
To clarify the above, I don't care what the SOURCE format of the document
is, as long as you can _convert_ it to HTML for display. SGML, info, man,
etc. are just fine, as long as we can
Bruce Perens:
> The unification of Debian documentation will be carried out via HTML.
I assume the unification won't mean that the native formats aren't
supported -- they _do_ have benefits.
That said, I fully agree with choosing HTML. Debiandoc, supports on-line
conversions to HTML from man an
Ian,
I am aware of your efforts with linuxdoc.sgml, and I think it's important
to make it clear that HTML is only the end-product. It's fine to encourage
people to use linuxdoc as a source language.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Documentation formats"):
> I am aware of your efforts with linuxdoc.sgml, and I think it's important
> to make it clear that HTML is only the end-product. It's fine to encourage
> people to use linuxdoc as a source language.
Err, yes, e
Rob Browning writes:
> Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't think we have free software packaged to do full text searches.
> > We have glimpse and ferret, neither of which is free. There's something
> > that is part of freeWais, but I haven't looked at it yet. Someone with
> >
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The thing is that I think we need to be able to distribute other
> [documentation] end-products [than HTML].
> HTML is bad for printing, for example, and not ideal
> if you have a slow machine. Choice is a good thing.
Do you have a proposal? I'm not trying t
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Documentation formats"):
> From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The thing is that I think we need to be able to distribute other
> > [documentation] end-products [than HTML].
> > HTML is bad for printing, for example, and not
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Documentation formats"):
...
> The unification of Debian documentation will be carried out via
> HTML. You should not consider the merits of a particular HTML viewer,
> or even the weight of the best of our existing HTTP servers. These things
> will
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Documentation formats"):
> From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The thing is that I think we need to be able to distribute other
> > [documentation] end-products [than HTML].
...
> Do you have a proposal?
...
My initial proposal is
> Or do we do some kind of display-time conversion from info to HTML ?
This is probably best.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Clinton isn't perfect, but I like him a lot more than Dole.
Please register to vote, and vote for Democrats.
Bruce Perens AB6YM [EMAIL PROTECT
Ian Jackson:
> Do we start distributing Texinfo-generated HTML instead ? [...]
> Or do we do some kind of display-time conversion from info to HTML ?
I'd suggest both. texi2html seems to do a nicer job than info2www,
but we shouldn't require people to install both HTML and Info versions
on sites
I'm not certain that distributing HTML with the packages and other formats
separately is a good idea. I think it might be a better idea to continue
as now and use on-line conversions from man and Info to HTML. Pre-converted
HTML should be distributed as separate packages.
Debiandoc (I really need
Mark Eichin writes ("Re: Documentation formats"):
> [Ian asked:]
> > (Is texi2html any good?)
>
> http://www.cygnus.com/ (and I'm sure other places) has texi2html'ed
> versions of gnu compiler-related tools, if you want a quick look at
> them.
Thanks. They do look reasonable.
Ian.
Mark Eichin writes ("Re: Documentation formats"):
> if we standardize the names for the alternate formats, can we also
> have, for each format foo, a virtual foo-viewer package, and include
> it in the dependencies? (That will, as a side effect, make it easier
> to deter
Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Documentation formats "):
...
> I'm not certain that distributing HTML with the packages and other formats
> separately is a good idea. I think it might be a better idea to continue
> as now and use on-line conversions from man and Info to HT
Ian Jackson:
> > I'm not certain that distributing HTML with the packages and other formats
> > separately is a good idea. I think it might be a better idea to continue
> > as now and use on-line conversions from man and Info to HTML. Pre-converted
> > HTML should be distributed as separate package
22 matches
Mail list logo
