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:
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
formats. It's some people's preference, but definitely not all (e.g. I
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
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.