Ultimately, I think Docbook would make the most sense, but writing SGML/XML is a lot more work than HTML. I think HTML will be the de facto format anyway, and that's a good thing.
But yes, definitely no binary formats.
.hc
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It would be really great if we could combine all of the existing tutorials out there into one coherent, navigatible set of tutorials. Just like PDDP is becoming the central repository for docs, and the CVS is the central repository for externals, there should also be a central repository for tutorials.
I think that the tutorials and PDDP should ultimately be part of the pure-data.sf.net CVS. It makes working collaboratively much easier than if these files are spread out all over the net.
I'd second putting a "doc" section to the CVS (although I've come to hate Sourceforge's bad reliability in regard to cvs-access, grrr)
I think, at first we should not force a certain format of the tutorials on the authors. In the end, I think, HTML is not a good storage format. Something like Python's reStructuredText [http://docutils.sourceforge.net/] or a sgml/xml format [http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.1.2/] will be easier to convert to different output formats, like doing a printed book and such.
But discussing formats will only keep us away from doing the needed writing work, so I propose to allow any kind of format except binary document formats. To clarify: No MS-Word documents!
ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
zen
\
\
\[D[D[D[D