[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: documentation types

On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 09:37:38PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote:
> "Thaddeus H. Black" <t@b-tk.org> writes:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:47:11PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote:
> >> Well, i personally like very much to have all (well a lot of) my
> >> documentation accessible, and searchable by dwww. For this I would want
> >> the html to be already generated, and I'm probably not the only
> >> one. Why not just create a -doc package that contain the tree of them,
> >> or may be only pdf and html (but there will be people to disagree with
> >> me on this).
> >
> > Hello Remi.  Question please, for you and anyone else who cares to
> > comment.  I happen to maintain some documentation which has lots of
> > mathematical formulas, geometrical diagrams, etc.  I also happen to be
> > upstream for this document.  Docbook and other generic markups have
> > always seemed to me a poor solution for the document, which currently is
> > marked up only in LaTeX---but this also means that no general
> > html/dhelp/dwww version of the document exists, and furthermore that the
> > document's text is hard to grep.
> Note that you could try hevea/latexhtml to transform you documentation
> to html. It might even lead to good result. Just try (it might not be
> very good, but it might be good, hevea do a lot of good work for such
> translating).

In fact the recent version of HeVeA (1.08) largely improves over
the previous versions when it comes to rendering of mathematical
formulas, so I suggest you give it try.


Reply to: