Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Tutorial 2.00 - Comments

[Joseph Heled]

I am sorry if I sound too harsh. Just trying to make a general point.


Can HTML be really the master? Have HTML WYSIWYG tools improved so much?
I don't think texi can be the master, since it's formating capabilities 
are not that great. I was thinking more at something like OpenOffice (.sxw).

What do you think?

And when on the subject, The FSF advises not to put any GIF's on 
Savanna. I started using PNG's, but you can make your own choice.

-Joseph

Albert Silver wrote:
> > If Albert allows I can try to switch it to texi. I already asked, if
>
> we
>
> > can use his fine dicumentation for a chapter "for the impatient" (or
> > similar), but unfortunately didn't get an answer.
>
>
> I don't recall being asked this as I know I would have said yes. As to
> the version of the "master", I honestly don't see the issue. Any exact
> copy can effectively be the master. Suppose there are 3 copies: the
> original in DOC, one in HTML, and another in RTF. Any of the 3 can be
> used as the next original to be worked on for improvements, no? The
> current version of this manual is v2.00. One could perfectly well take
> the HTML version being created by Tom Keith and build from it to make
> 3.00 for example. The documents are essentially identical. That's why I
> see no issue in what I or anyone else chooses to work with so long as
> such copies ARE made available.
>
>                                                 Albert
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg