[REBOL] Re: Up-to-date PDF documentation
From: moliad::gmail::com at: 23-Apr-2007 16:51
I must say nothing is easier than reading docs in PDF, I too printed a
version a while back, but even in electronic form, a well layed out
pagesetting is nothing like a never-ending feed of html text... html sucks
for long reads (with all the links and multiple documents), and its a hell
of complicated thing to try and get downloaded locally without stray links
breaking or some images staying behind...
Really, still today, for many things, I still use the single file PDF even
if its really out of date. i'd prefer if all of the little make doc pages
made by RT and friends where compiled into one PDF by chapter (dictionnary,
VID, View, Draw, 2.3 Guide, Plugin, Core changes, Encryption, other pro
features, SDK, etc).
Whatever tool was used for the docs, the fact that its actually created AS a
page by page manual within a real pagesetting app means paragraphs and
things like that will usually print out better. proper fonts are used
(serif and not, where appropriate) also conventions, like chapters starting
on the right page, and a real index mean its much more usefull globally.
If docs are to be re-created, they should be generated in such a way that a
universal, one book guide to all things rebol can be maintained alongside
(or out of) a typeset version... even if that means a 100 MB manual or a
reduced set of 2 or 3 smaller books (core, view, Professional extensions).
at least I can search one place and find all related information. Also,
relying on the net is cumbersome at some point. web sites fail, connections
drop, pages move, etc... its a never ending "find the doc" game.
The actual text of the original 2.3 guide was an immensely good read..
whoever wrote it, its one of the nicer tech books I have read. It only
lacks a bit in the more advanced sections, but for groking the basics to
intermediates of REBOL... its a must read with so many simple inline
Nick's docs are also very good. Maybe RT should try and find a way to reach
an agreement with Nick to add them as official docs and maybe unify them
under the same "look and feel" and actually include them under the RT site.
(but that depends if Nick wants such visibility, obviously).
On 4/22/07, Behrang Saeedzadeh <behrangsa-gmail.com> wrote: