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. Regards Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature