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

Re: documentation types

On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 07:34:14AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> pe, 2006-02-17 kello 01:10 +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> kirjoitti:
> > Docbook/XML or SGML conversion to HTML is easy. Proper PS / PDF generation is
> > not that easy (depends on toolchain and local configuration) and that's
> > what your average user typically asks for when handling large documents
> > (manny prefer printing bulky documents than reading them offline or online).
> As a hypothesis, I propose that many people prefer to print PS/PDF files
> rather than reading them from the screen because PS/PDF tend to be
> unpleasant to read from the screen. It doesn't, for example, reformat
> itself to the display/window/font size combination. HTML does that
> better.

Yes, but HTML code cannot be easily printed on paper as it does not "fit"
there. Also, since HTML documentation is typically generated in a way that
it split offs into  multiple files it is not easily printed (you have to
print all of the files by itself).

> Anyway, I'm not opposed to providing a PDF version in a package, but I
> really, really hope we're not going to switch away from HTML as the
> primary format.

We're not. I was just saying that HTML is the primary format but PS/PDF is
widely used to provide printable copies of documents for those that *don't*
want to read on screen.  Text is also commonly used for those that want
a single file they can search through fast without having to use any
additional tools (be them command line 'grep -r' or a specific reader, in the
PDF case). Text is also useful for those that want to read documents in
portable devices that don't handle HTML and/or PDF.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: