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

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



On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, Klaus Elsbernd <elsbernd@dfki.uni-kl.de> wrote:
> Mark Wedel <mwedel@pyramid.com> wrote:
> >  Might I suggest that HTML might be better than latex/postscript?  [...]
> 
> I would vote against html. I instead suggest {la}tex2html, to convert
> the documents to html.

The conversion from TeX or LaTeX to HTML is not very good, especially if
you want to have nice tables and color images in your documentation.

Let's face it: nowadays, many more people will be able to read HTML
files than LaTeX or PostScript files.  Also, as Mark mentioned, it
will then be easy to put the docs on a WWW server, which could be very
useful.  I suspect (and hope) that several people who have been
reluctant at updating the docs for CrossFire because they don't know
TeX or LaTeX will prefer to edit HTML docs.  Mind you, I have been
using LaTeX for years and I like it (very good for writing technical
reports) but now I think that HTML is more appropriate for documents
that are distributed on the Internet.

If the primary format for all docs is HTML, we should also provide a
text-only version (or a PostScript version) for those who don't have a
WWW browser.  Fortunately, this is very easy to do with Lynx, or even
with Netscape: load the HTML file, select "Save As..." and choose text
format; or select "Print..." and print to a PostScript file.

Is anybody still against that?  :-)

-Raphael

<A HREF="http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~quinet/games/crossfire-en.html">*</A>