|--==> "VS" == Ville Skytt <Ville> writes: VS> On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 16:56, Steve Youngs wrote: VS> Ouch, I was planning to mail you about this, but you beat me to it :( VS> Anyway, if I've understood correctly, an installed ECB as it is VS> now depends on the availability of the HTML docs. Ew, yuck. Any special reason for this, could it not just depend on the TeXinfo docs instead? VS> I'm not vetoing this, but Klaus should be able to provide more VS> details about the problem. ecb-help.el seems to be where it's at, and it looks to me that we're OK because the default help format is set to "info". Is that right, Klaus? ECB will still function correctly in the absence of the HTML docs, won't it? -- |---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 10D5C9C5>---| | XEmacs - It's not just an editor. | | It's a way of life. | |------------------------------------&lt;youngs(a)xemacs.org&gt;---|

Klaus> But: IMHO it would be very good if XEmacs-packages could be Klaus> shipped and build with HTML-support - the package-system Klaus> should be prepared to support such HTML-support. HTML is a great way to make a huge distributed FTP archive accessible. It (like the Windows Help format it closely resembles) is a crummy way to read technical documentation. It is completely unusable in a TTY. If people _ask_ for it, give it to them. We've got support for it in the build with the html target. Maybe make it a separate binary package. But I don't see why we should encourage use of a decidedly inferior[1] documentation format. OTOH, I can see very strong arguments for ditching the current idiosyncratic source and hypertext formats in favor of XML DTDs. But HTML docs are a regression, not an advance. Footnotes: [1] For our purposes; I can see why say The GIMP would strongly prefer HTML to Texinfo. -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.