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.
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
>(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 - firstname.lastname@example.org
> > "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