Re: KDE docs in other formats
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I leave you with this rhetorical question...
> > If DocBook is such a great format for the end-user to have their
> > documentation in, why are the files in /usr/share/doc/docbook-doc
> > HTML.
>
> I never said it was a gret format for the end-user. I said the benifits of
> using docbook for a distribution outway the spead the end-user gets from
> viewing documentation.
>
> It is easier to maintain a single file than 4 different versions of one.
> that's not even talking about the size.
That is the nice thing about the SGML and LaTeX way of doing things --
you don't need to maintain multiple sets of docs, you maintain one and
generate what is best for the intended use... be that printing,
hypertext, plaintext, some special format.
If KDE was using HTML <period> for their docs, then it is good they
changed
> If you want to maintain html versions of the documentation be my guest. It's
> a royal pain in the ass and I for one don't even use html. I prefer text. I
> know people who prefer .pdf. Which format should we provide? All of them?
> hmmm...let's calculate how much larger the distribution got by providing
> at least 4 different versions of documentation.
No need to get carried away, Ivan. I asked if there were docs
available in another format, then I asked how to generate HTML from
the docbook stuff, at no time did suggest that you (or even Debian)
should provide docs in multiple formats.
So...
How do I generate HTML from the KDE docbook documentation?
That is really the only thing I want to know.
- Bruce
Reply to: