Skip to main content.
home | support | download

Back to List Archive

Re: Swish Documentation

From: Frank Heasley <DrHeasley(at)not-real.chemistry.com>
Date: Tue Dec 12 2000 - 14:47:39 GMT
The points of HTML are at least two:

1. Everyone with a web browser can read it

2. The HTML pages can be publicly viewed at the Swish-E web site.

Frank

At 03:45 AM 12/12/00 -0800, you wrote:
>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 14:50:23 2000