Re: Man pages missing

[Juergen Erhard <jae@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> "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
good, either.

Now for some major snippage:

[SNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP]

    > 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
familiar with)...

AND NOW YOU GO AND PROPOSE FRAMEMAKER!!!!!! Excuse me for using the
megaphone, but...

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
access too...

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
identical.

    > 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...