Re: Style questions for RDP

[Damon Chaplin <damon karuna freeserve co uk>]

Dave Mason wrote:
> 
> I understand your suggestion of using tables throughout the docs but there are
> a few problems with tables in outputs other than html. Try making a sample doc
> with a table in it (informal or not) and output it to postscript. What you
> will get will disappoint you. If these docs are to be utilized in anything
> other than html (and I would guess that they would) I think we should refrain
> from using tables as much as possible.


Yes, I understand the point. The last time I tried to create postscript the
output was pretty bad (and I don't think it was just the tables).

We already use tables for all the function parameters, so I don't think it
will make our problem much worse if we use them for structs and enums as well.

Postscript can certainly handle tables. It's just the conversion tools that
are having trouble. I'm not sure if they have improved much since I last
tried.

(If the free tools prove inadequate, one possibility is to find someone who
has
commercial SGML tools to do the conversion. I'm sure there are some around
which
could handle it. By the way, O'Reilly's 'Programming Perl' book used DocBook -
it
was converted to Postscript via groff.)


Damon