Re: documentation types
Remi Vanicat <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> "Thaddeus H. Black" <email@example.com> 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
Or tex4ht. And there's also pdftohtml and pdftotext.
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)