Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: Man pages missing
- X-seq: zsh-users 716
- From: Juergen Erhard <jae@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: brown@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Man pages missing
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:51:53 +0100
- Cc: zsh-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <199701311526.JAA17043@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (message from Vidiot on Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:26:30 -0600 (CST))
>>>>> "Vidiot" == Vidiot <brown@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Perl is a bad example, since there are books available in your local book
> store. Zsh has no such book and really needs one.
Wouldn't hurt zsh's rep...
> <> Using FrameMaker would also allow for the document to be turned into a PDF
> <> file for on-line help. Frankly, the current help files are old fashioned.
> <> A state-of-the-art shell needs state-of-the-art manuals.
Not all that's 'old-fashioned' is bad... and not all that's new is
Now for some major snippage:
> Advantages: graphical, can included visual examples (though I admit that there
> isn't much in the way of graphics :-); the user can scale the size of
> the help pages to suite the needs of the user; hypertext TOC and index;
> just to name a few.
Yeah, sure whatever... not that I mind a guey... but, and there's a
big BUT coming up...
> Disadvantages: doesn't work on text-only systems (how many of these are
> still around (one shouldn't cripple the on-line help because of a lack of
> X-windows); paging thru the pages and lines is not obvious
Forgot one majorly major disadvantage: no free preparator...
Yeah and this here is one point that REEEEEEEALLY got me majorly
wondering... you just a post or two away said you don't like not
having access to the source of the zsh man-pages (in a format you're
AND NOW YOU GO AND PROPOSE FRAMEMAKER!!!!!! Excuse me for using the
FrameMaker is a proprietary (read: non-free) and rather expensive (in
my view) application that certainly not very many people on this list
(or, if we limit the scope of this discussion to the developers) have
I mean, what I can't reconcile is that first you complain not being
able to send in source patches for the manual, and then you propose
using a system for said manual that'd make it impossible (instead of
just uncomfortable... for the maintainer(s)) for a whole lot of people
to work with the manual source.
Riddle me this... I don't get it.
[another couple lines fell victim a pair 'o scissors]
> I personally
> prefer a physical copy of a manual.
Hey, I don't want to keep you from gettin a lot of paper...
> With PDF the user has the choice of
> using it on-line or printing it and making a copy that looks just like
> the on-line version, graphics and all.
Texinfo... no prob. Only the appearance on screen and on paper is not
> A pure text manual from texinfo
> can't do that.
No, not if I don#t have the source... and I hate it if I don't have
the .texi source!
> Of course, the source files for the text processor would
> be available and FrameMaker allows for the documentation to be used on all
> three major platforms; Unix, PC, Mac.
Yeah, until FrameMaker (the company...) decides that Unix is not
economically viable anymore (according to Bob Fences (obscure L&C
ref), Unix has less than 1% market share)...
> Again, these are my thoughts.
And these were mine...
Oh, and sorry if I've gotten a little loud there... *I* am not your
enemy (M$, on the other hand...)
> Visit - <URL:http://www.cdsnet.net/vidiot/> (Your link to Star Trek and UPN)
I'll do that ;-)
.sig *still* in the repair shop...
Messages sorted by: