[haiku] Re: GRRR! [was: Re: Man]

  • From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: haiku@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:56:41 +0200

Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> could you all please step back down from your own personal soapbox?

Yes please!

> I have asked a simple question: which format should we use for 
> console-based documentation?
> However, I've always found console based browsers a bit awkward. 
> That's why 
> I'm asking: can we live with links (our console based browser, it 
> seems) as 
> console-based documentation viewer? Is w3m (or any other browser) 
> better 
> for that task?

Same thoughts here. Since HTML is the better (and more flexible) choice 
in general, and our own documentation is in HTML as well, I would prefer 
to stick to a single documentation format, even if it means more work 
for porters.

As a "man" replacement, a very simple browser would do, so maybe one 
could get away from links by writing our own "man" replacement. Besides 
that option, maybe the links UI can be replaced with something more 
suited to the task?

OTOH if we decide to stick to man files, we could also write an add-on 
for Web+ that allows rendering them properly. So besides the naming, 
the user wouldn't really notice the format of the documentation.


Other related posts: