Subject: Re: LDP documentation and the FSF
From: wirzeniu@klaava (Lars Wirzenius)
To: [email-masked] (Matt Welsh), From:[email-masked] (Matt Welsh), [email-masked] (Lasu), [email-masked] (Olaf Kirch), [email-masked], [email-masked] (Larry Greenfield), [email-masked] (Karl Fogel)
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 23:49:40 +0200

X-Mn-Key: DOC

A few unstructured opinions:

1. Co-operating with the FSF is a good thing.

2. Using Texinfo is not an option, at least for me: very awkward markup
   notation, lousy hardcopy.  (Automatic conversion to Texinfo I have
   nothing against, of course.)

3. Using SGML, HTML, or some other notation is not an option for me
   either, at this time: I have no tools, and no time to install or
   learn such.  However, experimenting with other formats is a good thing,
   and after others have done it, I'll be happy to follow.  (I still
   say the same thing I've said for a long time: the hard part is getting
   the stuff written, converting to other formats is easy in comparison.)

3a.  My primary goal is writing a book; on-line documentation is a
   secondary goal.  I won't mind if people want to view it on-line,
   but hardcopy is what I'm striving at.  I'll think about on-line
   docs when the time comes.

4. Broadening the scope of the LDP docs: a good idea.  I'll try to do
   that gradually with the SAG.

5. I've seen parts of this discussion mailed directly to me, parts in
   DOC, WORD, and NORMAL.  Perhaps keeping it to DOC would be the
   most logical thing?

6. _Don't_ ask me when version ALPHA-2 of the SAG will come out.  But
   it will hopefully come out before Linux 1.0.

--
[email-masked]  (finger [email-masked])
Humans are unreliable, computers are non-deterministically reliable.