[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Albert Silver
Subject: RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Tutorial 2.00 - Comments
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:04:48 -0300

> Am Die, 2003-07-01 um 04.26 schrieb Joseph Heled:
> > Albert Silver wrote:
> > >>- I know GNUbg is mostly about Backgammon and very little about
> > >>software - Yet, it would be nice to try and stay away from
> > >>formats like .doc files
> > >
> > >
> > > This is merely what I wrote it in, not what will be made
> The
> > > public release will be hosted in HTML at Tom Keith's site just as
> > > previous version: http://www.bkgm.com/gnu/AllAboutGNU.html
> >
> > I understand, However -
> > I assume you want to keep one "master" and generate export formats
> > (HTML, PDF, ...) from it. If the master is in .doc format, anyone
> > want to change/improve it will have to use it. Then some MS-only
> > features start to creep in, and then only word can open it, etc,
> If Albert allows I can try to switch it to texi. I already asked, if
> 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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]