Subject: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 94-1-7-8:2
From: "Linux Activists" <[email-masked]>
To: "Linux-Activists" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 11:01:44 +0200

Topics:
	 Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 94-1-6-17:42

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 94-1-6-17:42
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 04:23:35 +0200

> From: [email-masked] (C. S. Hendrix)
> 
> I guess it depends on what our goal is.  If it's a huge hypertext based
> manual system, fine.  But I still say LaTeX is far better for producing
> truly usable manuals.  

I agree with this, but you can produce LaTeX from something like SGML,
and a lot of other formats, too. It would be great for the LDP books to
be available via WWW in HTML, and in texinfo. Yes, they wouldn't be
structured like other texinfo and HTML docs, but they'd be there. Better
than nothing.

Phil Hughes writes:
> Not having done much with texinfo (in other words, got it to run but
> never written anything with it) I don't say this from a position of
> strength but, to me, it seems idea for reference material but,
> personally, I would rather have the LDP stuff on paper where I can
> read it on the bus, 

I agree with this, but some people do like online browsing. I think we
can provide both and in the end, the more we provide, the more people
we help. Not everyone has access to a printer to print 200+ pages of
LDP docs. If our answer to that is ``Well, let them get it at the 
bookstore'' then we aren't upholding our goal of producing 
freely-distributable documentation very well. If we have the ability
to make it accessible to more people, in terms of format, let's do it.

------------------------------

End of DOC Digest
*****************
-------