Subject: FVWM: Info pages for fvwm

From: Mario Domgörgen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:53:12 +0100

Hej list!

Mising a comfortable way to read the man page I've started a info page
on fvwm today, mainly just porting over the the man page. As that will
be a lot of work, i though on putting it on a cvs server so other ppl
can participate. My question: Can it be put on the fvwm cvs server or
should i use savannah?

(BTW: The other purpose of that eMail was naturally to find other
info-fvwm lovers... :) )

Mario

-- 
The Web site you seek
cannot be located but
endless others exist

--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Johan Svedberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:34:17 +0100

> Hej list!

Hi!

> can participate. My question: Can it be put on the fvwm cvs server or

This was a good idea, IMHO FVWM should definitely include a info file.
This will indeed require some work, but since I usually prefer info over
man I would be willing to help out with the creation.

[...]

-- 
Johan Svedberg, [email-masked], http://johan.svedberg.pp.se/

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:48:39 +0100

> man I would be willing to help out with the creation.

However, creating an info page is not enough.  It must be
maintained like the man page, and I don't see anybody doing it.
I don't think we will have an up to date info page before we
switch to a different documentation source format.  Olivier has
made some efforts on this topic in the past, but did not come to a
conclusion yet.

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Gert Brinkmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:51:32 +0100

> Mising a comfortable way to read the man page I've started a info page

Yes, the man pages of fvwm are hard to handle. It is a very good idea to 
split it up.

> (BTW: The other purpose of that eMail was naturally to find other

Well, I do not like the info tool. Wouldn't it be good to choose a more 
common file format e.g. xml or something, so that several other formats 
could be generated by tools? I e.g. would like a set of html-pages 
instead of info.

Ciao,

Gert

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:54:16 +0000

> can participate. My question: Can it be put on the fvwm cvs server or

Please read the messages and attachments in this thread to see why this
idea is not considered good:

  http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/archive/0301/msg00181.html

Something like docbook2info would create want you want automatically.

Just for the record, I find one big man page much more confortable than
multiple info pages. For cross-link documentation I prefer html and
possibly lynx. Your effort would be ineffective and probably incompatible
for users wanting man pages and html like me. Unlike the docbook effort.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Mario Domgörgen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:05:09 +0100

> man I would be willing to help out with the creation.

My actual intention was to code a little fvwm-mode in emacs and i
missed a info for using info-lookup-symbol and similars to directly
jump to a function definition ... 

Should we first try to port the manual and adding extra content
afterwards? That would give us a info file faster as then one write a
complete new info document? After all that would be my first time
writing a info file for documentation... :)

Mario

-- 
A file that big?
It might be very useful.
But now it is gone.

---

From: Mario Domgörgen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:19:25 +0100

>   http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/archive/0301/msg00181.html

I read the thread but couldn't get the attachment ... 

The thread seems to die on some point?! Was there a decision?

> for users wanting man pages and html like me. Unlike the docbook

The decision between texinfo and docbook is rather contructed as both
can be easily converted forth and back. makeinfo supports
xml, docbook, html, text and tex out of the box. Even converting it
from docbook back to info shouldn't be very hard using
http://docbook2X.sourceforge.net/ , although i never tested it in that direction...

Greetings Mario

-- 
A crash reduces
your expensive computer
to a simple stone.

---

From: Mario Domgörgen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:24:34 +0100

Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:

>> > Mising a comfortable way to read the man page I've started a info
>> > page on fvwm today, mainly just porting over the the man page. As
>> > that will be a lot of work, i though on putting it on a cvs server
>> > so other ppl can participate. My question: Can it be put on the
>> > fvwm cvs server or should i use savannah?
>> 
>> This was a good idea, IMHO FVWM should definitely include a info
>> file.  This will indeed require some work, but since I usually prefer
>> info over man I would be willing to help out with the creation.
>
> However, creating an info page is not enough.  It must be maintained
> like the man page, and I don't see anybody doing it.

To keep the whole thing low here, i don't asked to include the info file
in fvwm ... just for interested ppl and *maybe* a playce on cvs (before
putting it on savannah). That was no call for "I will mantain the new
documentation format"... :)

> I don't think we will have an up to date info page before we switch to
> a different documentation source format.  Olivier has made some
> efforts on this topic in the past, but did not come to a conclusion
> yet.

If there is the possibility to get a new documentation source format in
a reasonable time i won't say another thing about that issue (as long as
the format support info :) ) But in any other case i see no harm in
doing a info file easily portable to xml, html, docbook and tex?!

Grettings! Mario

-- 
The Tao that is seen
Is not the true Tao, until
You bring fresh toner.

---

From: Thomas Adam <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:25:13 +0000 (GMT)

> The thread seems to die on some point?! Was there a decision?

Yes, reading it often helps. I am going to stick by the manpage
idea...manpages are much easier than info pages. Their navigation sucks
even with the use of: 'pinfo'.

No, I prefer manpages for all the reasons stated thus far. It won't be
changing and as Mikhael points out, is counter productive.

-- Thomas Adam

=====
"The Linux Weekend Mechanic" -- http://linuxgazette.net
"TAG Editor"                 -- http://linuxgazette.net

"<shrug> We'll just save up your sins, Thomas, and punish 
you for all of them at once when you get better. The 
experience will probably kill you. :)"

 -- Benjamin A. Okopnik (Linux Gazette Technical Editor)

________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" 
your friends today! Download Messenger Now 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Thomas Adam <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:29:41 +0000 (GMT)

> documentation format"... :)

I should like to think you would otherwise what's the point of starting it
off in the first place? It would be a waste of time and effort.
 
> doing a info file easily portable to xml, html, docbook and tex?!

I do....maintainability. The man pages are always kept upto date. If
people start wanting to read an info page which is not they'll be
mis-informed.

-- Thomas Adam

=====

---

From: Mario Domgörgen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:34:20 +0100

> changing and as Mikhael points out, is counter productive.

Huh? I can't find anything in my former mails about switching to info
format. And if you read it in it, I'm sorry ... i just wanted to
convert the man page to the info page to ease *my* pain in reading it
... i never wanted you to throw man away...

Greetings!

Mario

-- 
You step in the stream,
but the water has moved on.
This page is not here.

---

From: Mario Domgörgen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:42:30 +0100

> off in the first place? It would be a waste of time and effort.

What waste could it be for me and possible some others (?) who wanted
to have it in info format to read it?!

I don't think any free software project would ever have been started
if there would be a "Don't start to code until you are willing to
mantain it or find somebdy else who do it" from all sides...
  
> people start wanting to read an info page which is not they'll be

I don't want the info page to be the same as the manual ... manuals are
a totally other thing than just man pages ... i've just started to add
a few things from the man page which are important for me.... And there
will be no "mis-leading" in calling it alpha and put a note in
it. 

Greetings!

Mario

-- 
Having been erased,
The document you're seeking
Must now be retyped.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:44:27 +0100

It's because of this sentence:

> The decision between texinfo and docbook is rather contructed as
> both can be easily converted forth and back.

In any case, if we ever switch the documentation source format,
the man page will still be the most important output format.  If,
with a certain source format, we can't easily have a man page of
at least the quality it is now, that source format is
inacceptable.  Other than that the decision should be made by ease
or use, maintainability and how it supports other output formats.
It's probably wise not to require installing a documentation
package that is hard to set up.

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Mario Domgörgen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:02:10 +0100

>> both can be easily converted forth and back.

I wrote that because the thread mainly focused on whether to use docbook,
man, pod, info etc...

If it is planned to use docbook i'm very happy about it as that would
make it very easy for me to get my info page... 

> package that is hard to set up.

Sorry, if my cited sentence lead you to the conclusion i want to
discuss the matter of the official documentation format. Just forget it
as it was never writte... :) I just wanted to find maybe some
co-workers and a place to put ( i will submit on savannah when others
are interested in helping)

That was the reason i send that mail to "Fvwm Users" and not to
Workers...

Mario

---

From: Olivier Chapuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 06:56:49 +0100

> The thread seems to die on some point?! Was there a decision?

My conclusions was:

1) Convert all our man page into XML "FVWM DocBook" format. So, the
new source doc will be fvwm/fvwm.xml,modules/FvwmButtons/FvwmButtons.xml,
bin/fvwm-root.xml ...etc. Use a new dtd (DocBook + some restriction + some
special tags for fvwm style, fvwm command ...etc.). docbook-xml as is,
is not what we/I want we should customize it.

2) We should distribute our man page (other format is an other story)
so we should convert the xml docs into man pages. There are _no_ tools
that allows to do the conversion from XML-DB to height quality manpage
(as we have now). So, we should do it ourself. I've started to write a
xslt stylesheet that can do this.

3) Other formats: for html docbook-xml + some customization can give
good result. It is not so easy to get good ps/pdf output (via tex or
fo), there are various tools (e.g., jade, passivetex and fop). I am
sure that we can get good info page.

4) All the active fvwm workers should be happy with editing the new .xml
files. 

5) All these need a lot of work. I do not have the time now, but if
someone wants to do it, (s)he is welcome. I may help at the beginning.

> > Something like docbook2info would create want you want automatically.

What I've noted about all these tools that convert a format to an other
is that I'am rarely happy with the result. In general you need either
to reparse the result or add some custumization.

Regards, Olivier

---

From: Dorothy Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:05:39 -0800

There exists at least one searchable manpage reader, TkMan. 
<http://tkman.sourceforge.net/>  Besides being able to search, it can 
collapse sections of the manpage to their headers, like an outline. It's 
very good for taming overgrown manpages such as fvwm's.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dorothy Robinson
http://www.twobarleycorns.net
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Dorothy Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:37:13 -0800

Being one of the people who voted for the logo that won - what a great 
design - I got to wondering what Aquatint would do with it.  Aquatint is 
an elegant little program for MacOS X that does only one thing - it 
"liquefies" a shape.  I'm _not_ promoting my experimental variations in 
any way, but I posted them just for fun. I couldn't turn it into a tabby 
cat though :-)
<http://www.twobarleycorns.net/Aqua_Feline.html>

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:51:41 +0000

> <http://www.twobarleycorns.net/Aqua_Feline.html>

Very nice, this is what I meant in:

  http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/archive/0401/msg00085.html

If you read this thread you may also see there is now a logo variant
with improved "F", and both logo variants are available in the huge size.

Regards,
Mikhael.