[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs-Xtra
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: emacs-Xtra |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:28:46 +0300 |
> From: Nick Roberts <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:41:18 +1200
>
> I think emacs-Xtra is becoming a bit of a dog's breakfast
I tend to agree.
> (possibly an ms-dog's breakfast!).
I don't understand this part, especially since most of the MS-DOS info
is still in an appendix to the main manual.
> If I want to find something out about VC, I don't want
> to have to search through *two* manuals to find it because I can't guess
> where the arbitrary split has been made.
>
> I think the all the documentation for VC should be in one manual.
I agree. And the same goes for Calendar.
On top of that, whoever split portions of msdog.texi into emacs-xtra,
managed to remove from the main manual important information about
setting up printing on Windows.
> I have two suggestions:
>
> 1) VC has its own manual like PCL-CVS does.
>
> 2) All the programming/development topics are moved to a separate manual
> (Emacs IDE?) and only the obscure stuff is left in emacs-Xtra.
I have a 3rd suggestion (which I think I already made in the past):
3) Have those ``extra'' sections be part of the on-line manual, but
not of the printed manual. In the printed manual, replace the
extra sections with an xref to the extra manual. The Texinfo
@ifinfo facility should do the trick.
This should be a good solution to the original problem, which is that
the FSF wants the printed manuals it sells to not be too large.
- Re: emacs doc changes, (continued)
- Re: emacs doc changes, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/20
- Re: emacs doc changes, David Kastrup, 2006/04/20
- Re: emacs doc changes, Ted Zlatanov, 2006/04/19
- Re: emacs doc changes, Richard Stallman, 2006/04/25
- Re: emacs-Xtra, Richard Stallman, 2006/04/15
- Re: emacs-Xtra, Richard Stallman, 2006/04/14
- Re: emacs-Xtra, Richard Stallman, 2006/04/14
Re: emacs-Xtra,
Eli Zaretskii <=