Skip to main content.
home | support | download

Back to List Archive

Re: Swish Documentation

From: Greg Caulton <gcaulton(at)not-real.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue Dec 12 2000 - 11:45:25 GMT
I primarily use windows - though occassionally I switch back and forth to
linux.  So the only logical option would be PDF.  HTML is fine, though due to
limited formatting and printing capabilities, so I'd rather see PDF. Windows
HTML seems pointless, as such a small subset of people would be able to read it
(though everyone with VisualC++6.0 etc.).

David Norris wrote:

> Ode to confusion!
>
> SRE wrote:
> > HTML! Don't build a separate format for each platform.
> > (PDF would be almost as good as HTML, but bigger)
> Bruce Bowler wrote:
> > Agreed that there should be a single format for each platform, but I
> > must say... Yeech to HTML. PDF is the way to go...
> Frank Heasley wrote:
> > Aside from POD, HTML is actually the most universally readable format.  If
> > there is to be an alternative, it shoudl be in HTML to reach the largest
> > number of people.
> Josh Rabinowitz wrote:
> > My posting below attempts to address all the points made so far on
> > this subject, and supports Bill's proposal for use of perldoc for
> > documentation.
>
> I'm certianly for POD.  Few people are going to see POD on Windows since
> many are using distributions I've built.  No one (sane :-) will be
> reading raw POD documents unless they are writing them.  The POD
> documentation would be used to automatically generate Text, HTML, PDF,
> Troff, TeX, etc documentation.  If only a single end-user documentation
> format was desirable (which it clearly isn't given the wide range of
> responses) then documentation could continue being written in HTML.
>
> To be more precise in my query: In what additional format(s) would you
> like to see the Windows documentation?
>
> HTML is certian and the primary concern.  PDF is fairly certian.  Unix
> Man pages may be included.  GNU Texinfo may be appropriate for full Unix
> documentation.  Along those lines, Windows HTML Help would be a logical
> alternative (not that anything but Windows would read it).
>
> The text of the various formats of the documentation will be identical.
> The only differences would be related to the format of the file(s).
>
> Windows HTML Help is basically a zip file containing HTML files (and
> some other things) with a .CHM file extension.  It would integrate into
> the Windows Help System, this way.  However, automating the build
> process of Windows HTML Help from POD (or anything else) may not be
> trivial.  If no one is interested in Windows HTML Help format
> documentation then I'll not waste time on it.  I do not use Windows,
> myself.  So, it's no benefit to me.
>
> --
> ,David Norris
>   Dave's Web - http://www.webaugur.com/dave/
>   Dave's Weather - http://www.webaugur.com/dave/wx
>   ICQ Universal Internet Number - 412039
>   E-Mail - dave@webaugur.com
>
> "I would never belong to a club that would have me as a member!"
>                                           - Groucho Marx
Received on Tue Dec 12 11:48:10 2000