Crossfire Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: HTML for docs? (was Re: CF: proposed docs (longish))



Kris Bosland wrote:
>Brian Thomas wrote:
> > 	As far as laTeX vs. html goes: I agree that the WWW stuff has
> > 	more utility, but the authour of the pages has to continually
> > 	update them. If we design a document using Latex/gawk scripts,
> > 	then the document will auto-matically update itself with each
> > 	new version; clearly desireable too. I wonder if there is 
> > 	a way to easily incorperate gawk to auto update Web pages...
> > 
>	The concept is fundamentally similar.  The source for both of these 
> formats is plain ascii text embedded in control codes for the 
> formatting. The difference right now, is that someone has experience 
> using Awk to hack up the LaTeX files from internal CrossFire data, and 
> this experience may not be present for HTML.  

The spoiler docs was originally made to in order to learn awk. (Just like
Frank wrote crossfire to learn X better). LaTeX was chosen because: 
1. Latex supported tables, html didn't at that time(I think).
2. You got a ready to print dvi file from LaTeX. 
3. I thought LaTeX was cool (Still do).  

Converting the scripts to generate html code shouldn't really be too hard.
(I guess). Actually the code can be written to generate both. Some points:
- You will get *a lot* of small gif files. (~300 of them, total size: ~500K)
- There is no reason the scripts should stay awk. If someone likes perl ....

Humm. Boff. Ok .. 

[6 Hours Later]

Ok. I've made a rough transition. The result can be viewed at
http://www.ifi.uio.no/~larso/spoiler2/spoiler.shtml

I'll mail the uuencoded source files to Mark Wedel and Brian Thomas.
Feel free to alter anything you (dont) like.. (like some hyperlinking)

	-Lars