On 11 Mar 2000, at 14:30, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Why did the GPC team choose for info instead of Tex? What are the advantages over Tex?
As others have mentioned, the FSF encourages (requires?) documentation in "texinfo" format. This hybrid allows one to use TeX to produce printed documents (or PDFs) or GNU Info to produce "help files." It's a tidy solution, because both are produced from the same sources.
On 11 Mar 2000, at 15:43, Peter Gerwinski wrote:
One could consider moving to DocBook (SGML) which can produce GNU Texinfo (and TeX and HTML and whatever).
Opinions?
Not unless you're proposing to supply an *additional* file format (i.e., in addition to texinfo files). All of the other GNU documentation is in texinfo format, and I'd prefer not to have to install a separate tool just to handle the GPC files.
As a philosophical note, it appears to me that documentation should be supplied in two basic formats: one suitable for printing, and one suitable for on-line viewing, the latter hyperlinked for easy navigation. Texinfo does just that with a single source format; it offers TeX for printed output and info for viewing. Any substitute must offer these two general output formats, I believe, for maximum utility.
I actually don't use TeX for printing but rather as an intermediate step to PDF. I print from the PDFs (because I don't have a Postscript printer), plus I can view them if I want. PDFTeX hyperlinks the PDF, which is an added bonus.
Nor do I use the info files at all. Instead, I make Windows WinHelp files; this is the "native" hyperlinked viewing format for NT. HTML or any other hyperlinked format would be acceptable too.
I personally find the texinfo file format to be arcane, but it serves the goal of producing printed and viewable material from the same sources.
-- Dave Bryan