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

[Kristofer Bosland <krisb@ring.org>]

	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.  I vote for HTML myself, 
particularly because the information is mainly for the inexperienced, and 
we will reach a broader audience with HTML.  If you go the 
meta-doc-thru-awk route, maybe both could be done.


-Kris Bosland



On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Brian Thomas wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 	Ok, 
> 
> 	I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents here, then re-outline a plan
> 	for the CF docs.
> 
> 	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...
> 
> 	Well, whatever. For now, I will work to build 2 versions of the
> 	players handbook, one will be a web page (ill announce a trial
> 	location to the list later this week) and one will be a laTeX
> 	document that should auto-update.
> 
> 						-b.t.
>