Re: RFC: Beginner's vim tutorial
Thus spake Lonnie Mullenix on Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 08:42:46PM -0600:
> Only thing I would add is that it would be really nice to be able to get
> this to print properly.
Do you mean you can't print the HTML properly (old news... :),
or that you can't print the PostScript docs ?
> I broke my Debian box yesterday playing around with a couple of
> testing/unstable packages, so I'm stuck on this NT box for a few
> days. Have a Winprinter too, so that is a pita, but I'll live with for the
> time being.
>
> So, printable would be good.
The printable version has always been not-quite-as-good as the
HTML version. That's a fact. I'm working on switching to XML, so
if FO is more customizable than dsssl, we might improve things a
bit.
The bad thing is that the tarballs on the website are *really*
old, and last time I checked (Friday) DocBook's dsssl and JadeTeX
were playing games, so I couldn't get any ps, dvi, rtf,... output.
Can't build a Debian package, and can't build a printable
tarball... :-(
However your suggestion is a good one, and we'll add a
'Printable Version' column as soon as this mess is sorted out.
BTW, does everyone agree that PDF would be a better choice for
an online printable version ? (Knowing that a number of people will
print this on disreputable systems that have no postscript support :)
(Though I intend to keep postscript for the .deb)
Bye,
Romain
--
There is a 20% chance of tomorrow.
Reply to: