Thomas Lockhart writes:
> > Something to think about maybe.
>
> Yeah, I've thought about it, and it is not at all clear. I understand
> all of your points, but for the hardcopy versions of docs having a
> single 600 page doc seems more unwieldy than having several 200 page
> docs (yes, they *are* that big!!).
>
> Just as you, I assume that people using html read the integrated doc.
Maybe we need a show of hands of how many people bother with the hardcopy.
I think for most people anything beyond 20 pages would never get near the
printer. At the point you reach 200 pages the extra 400 don't matter, the
paper is going to be empty beforehand anyway. If you want to print
something for reference you pick out the interesting pages (such as the
reference pages).
> btw, it is possible to mark up the docs so that you can, say, include
> cross references if it is html but include only citation references if
> it is hardcopy. So if we moved to having only the integrated doc in
> html, and only the smaller docs in hardcopy, then we could put more
> "clickable cross references" into the html.
That's the next question I had for you. :) I'm just happy the stuff builds
for me. But I don't think just linking stuff together is the answer. It's
only working around an organizational problem. IMHO.
Here's a thought: If we'd make it in "book" form like I suggested we would
probably have about a dozen major chapters. That's 50 pages each which is
much more printer friendly and you get to choose better. The only thing
you'd have to do is split up the postscript into separate files at some
stage.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden