info vs other doc formats

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Wed, 29 Nov 1995, Andrew Rakowski wrote:

> [Moans & whines deleted]

> I know in a later msg you mentioned firing up some info2xxx tools to
> get other formats for the doc.  That would be nice for me.  Of course,
> with today's HTML-centric world, info2html would probably be the most
> popular choice ("the choice of a gnu generation" to steal a line from
> Pepsi Inc. advertising 8^).  However, just having something I could
> read (.txt, .ps, even .tex) would be fine.

If you can't install the documentation tools on your machine, find someone
who can.  Gert supplies .txt (mgetty.asc) and .ps (mgetty.ps) as well as
.info and .dvi.  The source file mgetty.texi-in is perfectly easy to read. 
There is absolutely no need to browse .info files without the proper
tool.

Texinfo is an important standard and there is a huge amount of 
documentation in texinfo source files, from which all the formats above 
can be generated.  I for one am very pleased that I can use a single set 
of tools to access these resources, and do not expect the standard to be 
abandoned to meet the whims of ignorant and lazy trendies.

It appears that if Gert supplied a texi2html make you would not know it, 
and if you knew it you would complain that you didn't have the conversion 
tool.

I would like to congratulate and thank Gert for the superb documentation 
he has provided.  I would suggest to anyone who doesn't like it that you 
hire a documentation consultant to write the documentation you would 
like, and donate the result to Gert so that, at his entire option (i.e. 
if he approves of it and considers it compatible with what he has done), 
he might include it in the distribution.

-- Mike.