Re: In defense of HTML

[Kevin Forge <forgeltd@usa.net>]

Paul Anderson wrote:
> 
> > I was just thinking, "I wonder if it's possible to using HTML and lynx (or
> > Netscape) as a replacement/improvement for "man pages" (and Xman) and
> > "info" (and TKinfo)".
> >
> manpages are quick, simple overviews of a command.  They don't need links,
> they aren't meant to document EVERYTHING the program does in detail,
> they're just overviews.  I mean, run man gcc then info gcc.  Info's
> interface is reminiscent of a brittain trying to speak swahili to
> dutchman, BUT if you start straying from current accepted methods TOO MUCH
> you're dead.  Many progs have manpages, a large number have info docs,
> VERY FEW have HTML docs.  Big pain converting them.  TTYL!
> 
As far as I know there is a someone right now working feverishly on an
HTML based help browser for Linux ... I expect this to incorporate the
existing man pages at some future date.

"It's a dirty job ... but somebody's gota do it."

Yes converting man pages to HTML is a pain but it has to be done
if Linux is gona take over.  Yes Linux stalwarts will hate the idea
( I can't see why since the 'man' command will still bring up the 
old stile man pages ).  

As for not needing HTML; You are right ... but by the same token none
of the things SEUL or Independence is working on are needed.
How many man pages have references to related documents and other 
commands ?  
I thought this was the sort of thing HTML was created to simplify.

BTW : Netscape is far too large for a help browser.  However a 
minimal HTML browser should be enough since man pages are essentially 
plain text to begin with.  The difficult part is converting the MAN 
document format to html and making all the links work. 

-- 
"Through the firewall, out the router, down the T1, across the
backbone, bounced from satellite, Nothing but net."