Re: Documentation formats
>>>>> "LW" == Lars Wirzenius <liw@iki.fi> 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. While HTML is not the perfect format (e.g.,
LW> it lacks the navigation hints in Info), it is still the only
LW> common
There is a great advantage of info over html: you can search an entire
document with it. I think this is fundamental.
LW> denominator, and I guess most people will have a web browser
LW> installed anyway.
People who have standalone machines might not want to install a www
browser.
Lynx is ugly (JMHO). Can't really use it. Nevertheless, I must be able
to read docs in text mode.
IMHO info is a great format. After reading some discussion on
gnu.misc.disc I'm pretty convinced that it's currently the best format
for online docs (and don't forget texinfo files can also generate
printed manuals) and that we should try it a bit more. The real
problem are the info browsers. The last version I checked of the
standalone "info" program simply sucks. Maybe someone with a good
knowledge of termlib should take a look at it. Maybe add some mouse
support via gpm?
What about xinfo? Is this any good? Yes, I know there is tkinfo, but
it needs tcl/tk...
Ciao, Emilio.
--
Emilio C. Lopes <mailto:ecl@finpe.if.usp.br>
Instituto de Fisica da Universidade de Sao Paulo
Caixa Postal 66318, 05389-970 Sao Paulo - SP, BRAZIL
Phone: (+55) (11) 818-6724 (Voice) / 818-6715 (Fax)
Reply to: