From: H. P. A. <hp...@zy...> - 2008-04-19 16:13:23
|
Debbie Wiles wrote: > Hmm, wonder if my post will get through this time... (if only hpa gets > this, please forward to the list - this thread was not showing up on > sourceforge for me to reply from there when I tried earlier...). > > I agree that whatever work is done on the docs needs to be done with a > view to maintaining all the current output formats. If the format in > which the source is edited can be made more user friendly without > sacrificing any of the output formats, that would be great, but if > changing anything about the source format would break any of the output > formats, that would not be great. This includes adding pictures - if the > pictures are all in an ASCII format then great, they will be portable, > but a screenshot of a graphical interface will not be portable as it > cannot be placed in the middle of a text file... > That's not necessarily a showstopper, though. Obviously, images will not show in the ASCII format, but as long as the ASCII documentation is still usable, that is still fine. One thing that's worth noting is that HTML can be converted to plain ASCII using lynx. I haven't looked to see how good of a job it'd go with the NASM documentation, of course. > > I seem to recall that in the past it was felt we should stay with the > existing format for the documentation source. If I misunderstood what > was said back then (or the real words are just lost in time), or things > have changed, great, as it will make work done in maintaining documents > a lot easier for everyone concerned, so long as we not going to lose any > of the output formats for those who have specific needs. > I think the tools out there have significantly improved, and also I think that at least my understanding of available tools have improved, too. Of course, troff was always around, and a darn good tools at that, but hard to learn. -hpa |