Re: Docs format
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 12:13:54PM -0500, Cowboy wrote:
>
> >> From: Matthew Emmett <memmett@sfu.ca>
>
> >>
> >> curt@gwis.com (Cowboy) writes:
> >>
> >> > While I agree in principal, and acknowledge that the prefered method does
> >> > not fit my preference, I submit that there are cases ( such as a crippled
> >> > system where various word processors will not work ) when ANY meta
> >> > info within a document is a bad thing.
> >> >
> >> > One of the strong points of *nix text formatting systems, has been that
> >> > plain text can be formatted any way the reader likes.
> >> >
> >> > Since pure text versions tend to be much smaller than formatted versions,
> >> > may I suggest that both be available ? It's far easier to format plain text
> >> > than it is to UN-format a meta document, particularly when the various
> >> > word processors available will not work for whatever reason.
> >>
> >> I strongly disagree that it is easier to "format plain text than it is
> >> to UN-format a meta document". Take, for example, perl's perldoc.
> >> The documents are "meta-documents", and rendering them to nicely
> >> formatted plain-text is dead simple:
> >>
> >> $ perldoc -t -f splice
>
> That may be true of perldoc, but does it also apply to TeX or to Info,
> or HTML, or .....
>
> >> However, if I were presented a plain-text version of the above, and I
> >> wanted to format it into another format (man style for example) I'd
> >> have to muddle around and insert the appropriate meta-data.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I guess what I'm saying is, it is easy (IMHO) to go from meta-data to
> >> non meta-data. If one needs all docs in plain text for when they
> >> cripple their system (how often is that going to happen when the hurd
> >> matures anyways? :), they can simply render them to text!
>
> Your point is understood.
>
> I simply submit that some universal format is better than proprietary
> anything.
> I understand that the standard is info files, a reader which I've yet to
> get working before a new version come out, or an update to a system,
> which renders the working version broken, and the documents unreadable,
> or with great difficulty at best.
>
> Based on my years of experience, I stand by plain, ASCII text.
> It's served me well through 15 versions of Win9x, 8 versions of
> Win3.x, I-don't-know-how-many-versions of Linux, NT, and others.
> Through it all, text is the ONLY one that remains fully compatible,
> and un-broken regardless.
well its a good thing the Hurd has very little in common with these subpar immitations of what some people call 'operating systems'.
As I'm sure we can all agree, the Hurd is an OS written the way God intented. Clearly, then, we have but one choice: TeXinfo, also concieved in the bowels of divinity. Thus it is written, and so it shall be.
>
> Anyhow, I believe this is off-topic, and already decided.
I concur, let us not attempt to argue that which is infallible.
>
> --
> Cowboy
>
> You will be reincarnated as a toad; and you will be much happier.
>
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: