Subject: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 94-1-8-5:5
From: "Linux Activists" <[email-masked]>
To: "Linux-Activists" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 08:50:11 +0200

Topics:
	 Re: LDP documentation and the FSF
	 Re: LDP documentation and the FSF

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

From: Lars Wirzenius <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LDP documentation and the FSF
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 23:49:26 +0200

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.

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

From: [email-masked] (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: LDP documentation and the FSF
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 23:54:24 +0200

Lars Wirzenius <[email-masked]> writes:
> 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.)

I agree. I'd like to be able to convert to texinfo, so that the GNU folks
can use it, but I don't think that using texinfo as the base language is
the best idea.

> 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'm going to start looking at SGML. Once I have it all worked out, I
can write up a short tutorial (it looks quite easy), even get a Linux
binary distribution of the software you'll need.

It looks like the HOWTOs are going to move to SGML, so that will be
my guinea pig. :)

> 3a.  My primary goal is writing a book; on-line documentation is a
>    secondary goal.

Same here.

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

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