RE: gEDA-user: file format documentation section of manual

["Robert Thorpe" <Robert.Thorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From my perspective as a very occasional user:

- Stand-alone info can't handle graphical pictures, Emacs info can.
Also, Texinfo generated html, postscript or pdf can contain pictures.
- Info can be searched faster and more effectively than html or pdf.
- Texinfo manuals convert links into page numbers in output forms
intended for printing like postscript, which is much more useful than
funny coloured text.
- Documentation made with word processors is difficult to diff.

So, why not generate Info and HTML with pictures in.  Just tell the user
not to use standalone info if they want the pictures.
Put in makefile targets for pdfs and postscript for those who want them.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-geda-user@xxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-geda-user@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stuart Brorson
> Sent: 18 July 2005 23:32
> To: geda-user@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: gEDA-user: file format documentation section of manual
> 
> > 
> > 
> > The benefit of Texinfo is that it can be readily converted to many 
> > formats, and I wouldn't want to lose that.  It also lends itself to 
> > easy editing and cvs.  The latest Texinfo has lots of support for 
> > images and HTML, we should at least investigate that before 
> abandoning 
> > it as a format.  There's a reason why GNU projects use Texinfo.
> > 
> > Also, the latest Texinfo supports tables, bullet lists, and 
> drawings, 
> > so that's no excuse to avoid it.  It also supports hyperlinks and 
> > conversion to multiple web pages (good for goodle and linking).
> > 
> > Personally, I prefer HTML but then I edit HTML directly (emacs).  I 
> > prefer avoiding formats that require an *application* to 
> edit, even a 
> > free one such as OO.  Scriptable formats also lend themselves to 
> > automatic web site updates.
> 
> Hmmm, well I can also do it in tex (LaTeX), but it is a PITA 
> sometimes, particularly when it comes to embedding graphics.  
> I did the SPICE/gEDA HOWTO using Lyx -> Docbook -> LaTeX -> 
> [.pdf | HTML].
> It was a PITA compared to just writing the doc in OOWriter.  
> OTOH, it is doable.
> 
> > OTOH volunteering to fix it tends to out-vote anyone who doesn't ;-)
> 
> I know that  :-)
> 
> Stuart
>