Re: README-Users.m4 > README.txt
Ross Boylan <RossBoylan@stanfordalumni.org> writes:
> At 04:08 PM 3/19/00, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> >It doesn't make sense to me to put windows EOL conventions on the text
> >file. Instead, perhaps the file should be README.txt instead of
> >README. FTP should be doing ASCII transfer and auto-converting. HTTP
> >browsers should be using MIME type text/plain and also
> >auto-converting. Really, there is no need to use *anything* but Unix
> >EOL conventions.
>
> This still leaves the case of an MS Dos/Win user looking at a CD. Html is
> good, but some people don't have browsers or other viewing facilities.
>
> Wordpad, at least in recent NT's, can handle Unix line end conventions, but
> that is not the default document viewer. I think most recent ms-windows
> flavors have quickview, which may know how to handle the line ends (I'm not
> sure of that).
>
> >Please please please don't put DOS-centric stuff into Debian!
>
> Well, can we achieve world domination without making it easy for the DOS
> user to switch? If the very first file they open is unreadable, it is
> likely to be off-putting.
>
> Readme.txt (rather than readme.) would make life easier for MS-land, but it
> probably does need MS line ends to work well.
> Perhaps we should generate two versions of the file? I know this is going
> down a slippery slope ....
Indeed.
I leave this to the CD folks to worry about. I've CC'd debian-cd.
But I thought ISO9660 images were EOL-independant somehow? I dunno.
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: