Re: HTML instead of GNU Info?
On Sat, Jul 10, 1999 at 02:18:57PM +0200, Christian Hammers wrote:
> > With HTML you've got to start a browser and to search HTML, you
> > need a web server with CGI and glimpse or suchlike. And there's no
> > cursor to put on it for dictionary/man lookups or paste-ins. Thus,
> > HTML is much less conveinient, and inferior, IMO. Yes, `info'
> > could be made to look nicer on the screen... on a GUI. Many of us
> > need both X11 and terminal access to manuals.
>
> Thats not true. You just have to type "lynx <filename>" and then you
> can read the html without mouse/cgi/glimpse etc.
or you can use "unhtml FILENAME | less" (which is even faster than lynx,
and less's keybindings are much nicer than lynx's) if you don't need to
follow the href links.
craig
ps: i don't think info docs should be replaced with html docs, even
though i think that info browsers suck (all of them, some more than
others. even the best are screwed by the fact that the info format is
awful).
anyway: provide both formats if possible, otherwise provide the most
"source-like" format from which other formats can be generated (for info
docs, this means texinfo rather than info).
alternatively, make multiple -doc packages when appropriate...e.g.
foo-doc-html, foo-doc-info, foo-doc-tex etc for large packages with big
doc files.
--
craig sanders
Reply to: