Re: RFC: Beginner's vim tutorial
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 09:50:38PM +0100, Romain Lerallut wrote:
| 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.
What's "FO"? Have you (or do you want to) try LaTeX? I've had good
results with LaTeX (even with my limited knowledge) as long as I
followed it's guide and didn't try to forcibly locate things on the
page.
| 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)
PDF is better for those sytems, PS is generally better for the rest,
systems using CUPS can deal with both equally well. Besides, I think
all the PDFs I've seen generated with tools like ps2pdf work find in
ghostscript/gv/gnome-gv.
-D
--
All a man's ways seem innocent to him,
but motives are weighed by the Lord.
Proverbs 16:2
Reply to: