Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:11:23 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/15/2011 03:59 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>
>> Wrote the draft proposal for it:
>>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/HtmlDocs
>>
> Comments from my part:
>
> 1. texinfos need special preparation to be able to convert them to html.
> This applies to many cases, but does not apply in general.
>
OK, I believe a machine-generated HTML is good enough as the first step.
Possible specific problems can be fixed up as normal Bugs later.
> 2. html is just one amongst many formats texinfos can be (if the
> texinfos have been prepared for) converted to.
>
Some list of formats is given on the Wiki page.
> I don't see any reason to give html preference over one of the other
> formats. It's some people's preference, but definitely not all (e.g. I
> prefer pdf).
>
I prefer INFO over all the other ones. But I remember I was using HTML before
I got used to the only provided INFO. When a separate -doc subpackage is
provided I believe providing all the tree of INFO, HTML and PDF is not
a problem (HTML as I dislike PDF over the other paging-free formats).
> 3. Many of these html docs are available on-line - Adding local copies
> to Fedora only adds bloat to the distro
>
As we face it on freenode#gdb channel the online versions do not match the
local copies. And I do not want to be dependent on network with notebook.
> 4. The GNU standards's officical documentation format is info.
>
Yes, just Fedora is not GNU.
Thanks,
Jan
--
packaging mailing list
packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
Another concern, for those of us with several X-less machines, is that
HTML isn't as easy to work with as info or man in a terminal. Why
switch from info to html, why not provide both?
-J
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie