[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Info tutorial is out of date

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: Info tutorial is out of date
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:37:27 -0700

    >     > If there is a separate standalone-reader manual, then stuff
    >     > that is specific
    >     > to the standalone reader should go in that manual.
    >     See my other mail for the reasons why this would be not a
    >     good idea.
    > I read your other emails (unless there is yet another
    > somewhere), and I didn't see any reasons for this.
    > Please point them out.

    The need to have the Info manual be the first manual they read.

And what is the problem in that regard? I'm not assuming they need to read
any other manual first.

    > I saw some hand-waving about bootstrapping

    Sigh.  Do you really think this style facilitates fruitful discussion?

I'm really trying to understand you, Eli. Give me something concrete to get
hold of. Just what is the problem?

    >     Isn't the fact that you didn't even know about that other manual's
    >     existence tells volumes of why we shouldn't leave out
    >     stuff related to
    >     its basics from the beginners' Info manual?
    > No, I don't see the relation between my ignorance of the
    > standalone-reader manual and "why we shouldn't leave out
    > stuff..." What's the connection? What volumes does it tell?
    > Can you be specific?

    Specifically, it is not a good idea to describe basic stuff in a
    manual that no one will find.

Which basic stuff are we talking about? Which manual? Why won't they find
it? I don't follow you at all, and I'm trying to. What is the problem you're
trying to describe?

    >     Please at least read the other manual before you argue about the
    >     duplication issue.  They are two different manuals--different in
    >     style, in preferences, and in target audience.
    > You should be able to characterize the difference for those
    > of us on the list.

    But I just did--in the text you cited above.

Well, I give up. Sorry, I just don't understand your point.

reply via email to

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