} Is anyone on this list into Texinfo? I have mechanically converted the
} Exim manual into a Texinfo file as an experiment (I wrote a Perl
} script), and would like someone who is more familiar with Texinfo to
} take a look at the result and say whether it is a useful alternative
} format in which to distribute the documentation.
I have used it although not extensively.
It can produce very nice printed results, and can give a nice
browsable version using the emacs browser or the standalone info
reader. I personally always convert to html using a fairly nice
texi2html program I got off the net.
There are a number of tools for manipulating and converting it.
It diffs better than postscript :-).
I would be in favour of distribution docs being in texinfo form with
a separate postscript (and html?) docs distribution.
Simple conversion can give good results. If internal hyperlinks can
be created as, when and if you have time that would make things even
nicer (unless your converter is better than I give you credit for in
which case most of the xrefs could be done in one shot). Indexing
can be done nicely as well.
As for who can use it... pretty much all Linux systems have tex &
texinfo somewhere although not everyone uses them all the time. All
other unix systems can get it, but I am not sure of how widespread
working installations are - but then a separate postscript
distribution fixes this.
Has anyone got texinfo tweaks to use postscript native fonts rather
than tex basic ones?
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel.Metheringham@??? - Unix Applications Engineer ]
[ *Views expressed here are personal and not supported by PLAnet* ]
[ PLAnet Online : The White House Tel : +44 113 251 6012 ]
[ Melbourne Street, Leeds LS2 7PS UK. Fax : +44 113 2345656 ]
