| 1 |
On Feb 6, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Grant Edwards <grante@××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 2009-02-06, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Friday 06 February 2009 15:29:21 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:58:56 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> I prefer man. Even huge manpages. You can easily search them and |
| 7 |
>>>>> if |
| 8 |
>>>>> you don't know what you are looking for you can glanze them over |
| 9 |
>>>>> quickly. |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> The kde ioslave for info makes this somewhat tolerable. At least |
| 12 |
>>>> you |
| 13 |
>>>> move around in a webpage-like environment that feels familiar. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> Which begs the question, why not use HTML? It can be read on just |
| 16 |
>>> about |
| 17 |
>>> anything, searched and either split into chapters or presented as |
| 18 |
>>> a single |
| 19 |
>>> page. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> The cynic in me says that it's because Tim Berners-Lee |
| 22 |
>> invented HTML, not Richard M Stallman. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Info has been around a lot longer than HTML, but I think you're |
| 25 |
> largely correct. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> -- |
| 28 |
> Grant Edwards grante Yow! LBJ, LBJ, |
| 29 |
> how many |
| 30 |
> at JOKES did you tell |
| 31 |
> today??! |
| 32 |
> visi.com |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I'd wager to think that if we did use HTML, we'd simply argue about |
| 36 |
the order of it's presentation or use of bold and underlines. |
Archives