Re: new approach: Documentation Policy
On Fri, 4 Jul 1997, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Christian Meder writes:
> > On Jul 3, Christian Schwarz wrote
> > > In case of converted HTML documentation, the files with the original mark
> > > up format should not be included, unless they are considered as "example
> > > documents" for that mark up language. (.texi files are an exception to
> > > this rule, see below.)
> > doesn't fit sgml this bill too? It's a generic markup language and can
> > be converted into html, info, etc. on demand.
> Maybe some special handling has to be done for sgml. IMHO, it
> should be shipped as both sgml and html-converted; maybe as info too ?
> Anyway, it's far too slow to convert on-the-fly (at least with sdc; I
> don't know about others; linuxdoc-sgml ?)
You are right. I thought about this again. My last argument (that the
sgml compilers are two slow) did not make much sense, since runnnig TeX
over a texinfo file takes some time too.
So I think we should treat SGML files like texinfo files: Each package
should ship a precompiled HTML version, as well as SGML source code. In
addition, there should be a unique way to produce other formats
(Postscript, etc.) from the SGML source.
-- Christian Schwarz
PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
CS Software goes online! Visit our new home page at
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .