[OpenAFS-Doc] RE: [OpenAFS] Documentation project comments

[ted creedon]

Try the html tarball posted to bugs.

It's the manual updating of the hyperlinks that could be worrisome, unless
the hrefs are all pulled out and replaced with \label, \index and \ref's.
This might be the best thing to try since some downstream converters don't
support the hyperref package.

Despite the the lack of automatic hyperlinks, the latex in the tarball is
easily edited, one just has to watch the link numbering. (The IBM
documentation package apparently generated them automatically).

tedc 

-----Original Message-----
From: openafs-info-admin@openafs.org [mailto:openafs-info-admin@openafs.org]
On Behalf Of Esther Filderman
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 12:08 PM
To: openafs-info@openafs.org
Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] Documentation project comments

On 6/10/05, ted creedon <tcreedon@easystreet.com> wrote:
> For what its worth, I think html documentation with hyperlinks is not 
> the best way to go. It just happened to get done first on the second 
> round of conversions.

Yes, you've made your bias clear since you started this. While I sincerely
appreciate your effort, we MUST have documentation that's available online.
Requiring people to download giant postscript or pdf files to look up one
command is ludicrious.

>>ps is not practical.

Making things look pretty is fine, but they also have to be usable. 
In the end, HTML is likely going to be the most used.

>>Or POD, possibly. The market will determine that. If html is predominatly
used then the hyperlinking needs to be cleaned up so its automatic, not
manual.
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info