HTMLized FAQ

HTMLized FAQ

[Jean Delvare]

I think that we should regenerate the HTML (and possibly text) version
of our FAQ using a newer texinfo. I gave it a try and the HTML code
seems to have been greatly improved.

And, by the way, why is the faq version set to 2.0? It should be either
2.7.0 (or 2.8.0 by now) if it is supposed to match the lm_sensors
release number (I don't think it is) or 2.9 if it has its own numbering
scheme.

Pete, what are we supposed to fill in the EDITION and VERSION fields of
version.texi? (I mean, what's the difference between these fields?)
Also, don't you want your name to be mentioned in the file? You did a
great job!

-- 
Jean Delvare
http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/

HTMLized FAQ

[Mark Studebaker]

If you think it looks better then go ahead and check it in.
See instructions in doc/Makefile.
The version is totally arbitrary. If you want to advance it to 2.8 go ahead.

Jean Delvare wrote:
> 
> I think that we should regenerate the HTML (and possibly text) version
> of our FAQ using a newer texinfo. I gave it a try and the HTML code
> seems to have been greatly improved.
> 
> And, by the way, why is the faq version set to 2.0? It should be either
> 2.7.0 (or 2.8.0 by now) if it is supposed to match the lm_sensors
> release number (I don't think it is) or 2.9 if it has its own numbering
> scheme.
> 
> Pete, what are we supposed to fill in the EDITION and VERSION fields of
> version.texi? (I mean, what's the difference between these fields?)
> Also, don't you want your name to be mentioned in the file? You did a
> great job!
> 
> --
> Jean Delvare
> http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/

HTMLized FAQ

[Mark M. Hoffman]

Some weeks ago, I started converting the FAQ to docbook by hand as an
exercise in learning docbook.  I'm sure there are 1001 texi-2-XML tools,
but doing it quickly wasn't the point at the time.  You can see the
results here:

http://members.dca.net/mhoffman/sensors/docbook/

The HTML is there, along with a tarball of what I used to get there.
There is also a list of RedHat 9 RPMS that I installed.  I've learned as
much about docbook as I intended without ever finishing this... but if
you think it's an improvement I'll keep on it.  FWIW I think the source
is easier to read than texi.

* Mark D. Studebaker <mds@paradyne.com> [2003-06-30 13:45:12 -0400]:
> If you think it looks better then go ahead and check it in.
> See instructions in doc/Makefile.
> The version is totally arbitrary. If you want to advance it to 2.8 go ahead.
> 
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > 
> > I think that we should regenerate the HTML (and possibly text) version
> > of our FAQ using a newer texinfo. I gave it a try and the HTML code
> > seems to have been greatly improved.
> > 
> > And, by the way, why is the faq version set to 2.0? It should be either
> > 2.7.0 (or 2.8.0 by now) if it is supposed to match the lm_sensors
> > release number (I don't think it is) or 2.9 if it has its own numbering
> > scheme.
> > 
> > Pete, what are we supposed to fill in the EDITION and VERSION fields of
> > version.texi? (I mean, what's the difference between these fields?)
> > Also, don't you want your name to be mentioned in the file? You did a
> > great job!

Regards,

-- 
Mark M. Hoffman
mhoffman@lightlink.com

HTMLized FAQ

[Jean Delvare]

> Some weeks ago, I started converting the FAQ to docbook by hand as an
> exercise in learning docbook.  I'm sure there are 1001 texi-2-XML
> tools, but doing it quickly wasn't the point at the time.  You can see
> the results here:
> 
> http://members.dca.net/mhoffman/sensors/docbook/
> 
> The HTML is there, along with a tarball of what I used to get there.
> There is also a list of RedHat 9 RPMS that I installed.  I've learned
> as much about docbook as I intended without ever finishing this... but
> if you think it's an improvement I'll keep on it.  FWIW I think the
> source is easier to read than texi.

I don't mind if we use texi or docbook, as long as there is one single
root document that can be converted to both plain text and HTML. I would
tend to think that XML is good (tm) and should be used as often as
possible, but since Crazy Pete did it as texi at a time none of us was
interested in doing anything, I'd keep it this way until we have a
strong reason for switching to any other system.

-- 
Jean Delvare
http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/

HTMLized FAQ

[Mark D. Studebaker]

I vote for texi because I have it, never got docbook working.

About my only formatting requirement is that the individual questions
are numbered, which makes email and ticket answers easy
("see FAQ #4.21")

Jean Delvare wrote:
>>Some weeks ago, I started converting the FAQ to docbook by hand as an
>>exercise in learning docbook.  I'm sure there are 1001 texi-2-XML
>>tools, but doing it quickly wasn't the point at the time.  You can see
>>the results here:
>>
>>http://members.dca.net/mhoffman/sensors/docbook/
>>
>>The HTML is there, along with a tarball of what I used to get there.
>>There is also a list of RedHat 9 RPMS that I installed.  I've learned
>>as much about docbook as I intended without ever finishing this... but
>>if you think it's an improvement I'll keep on it.  FWIW I think the
>>source is easier to read than texi.
> 
> 
> I don't mind if we use texi or docbook, as long as there is one single
> root document that can be converted to both plain text and HTML. I would
> tend to think that XML is good (tm) and should be used as often as
> possible, but since Crazy Pete did it as texi at a time none of us was
> interested in doing anything, I'd keep it this way until we have a
> strong reason for switching to any other system.
>