They seem rather pointless, considering:

1. them being on the web is better anyway
2. the new pdf version of the spec

On 2/4/13, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> They seem rather pointless, considering:
>
> 1. them being on the web is better anyway
> 2. the new pdf version of the spec
>

They're used for CHM generation.

On 2013-02-04 00:58, Walter Bright wrote:
> They seem rather pointless, considering:
>
> 1. them being on the web is better anyway
> 2. the new pdf version of the spec

Theoretically:
It's useful, because the docs' version matches the compiler,
while the website only lists current documentation.

Practically:
I'm quite sure few people read those offline html docs.

On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 00:26:06 UTC, FG wrote:
> On 2013-02-04 00:58, Walter Bright wrote:
>> They seem rather pointless, considering:
>>
>> 1. them being on the web is better anyway
>> 2. the new pdf version of the spec
>
> Theoretically:
> It's useful, because the docs' version matches the compiler,
> while the website only lists current documentation.
>
> Practically:
> I'm quite sure few people read those offline html docs.

I do, when I have no internet access.

NMS

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:58:35 -0800
Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
> drop html docs from the dmd distribution?

PLEASE NO.

> They seem rather pointless, considering:
> 
> 1. them being on the web is better anyway

Not when you don't have internet access or when you need docs an older version.

> 2. the new pdf version of the spec

PDF is complete shit for on-screen browsing, or for anything other than printing for that matter. HTML is good for on-screen browsing.

On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 23:58:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> They seem rather pointless, considering:
>
> 1. them being on the web is better anyway
> 2. the new pdf version of the spec

I use the included HTML docs when I have no internet
access (e.g. in train, which is 2hr/day for me).

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:53:32 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:58:35 -0800
> Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>> drop html docs from the dmd distribution?
>
> PLEASE NO.
>
>> They seem rather pointless, considering:
>>
>> 1. them being on the web is better anyway
>
> Not when you don't have internet access or when you need docs an older
> version.

+1

-Steve

On 2/3/2013 3:58 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> They seem rather pointless, considering:
>
> 1. them being on the web is better anyway
> 2. the new pdf version of the spec

Ok, everyone, you made your point! They stay.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:58:35 -0800
> Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>> drop html docs from the dmd distribution?
> 
> PLEASE NO.
> 
>> They seem rather pointless, considering:
>> 
>> 1. them being on the web is better anyway
> 
> Not when you don't have internet access or when you need docs an older version.
> 
>> 2. the new pdf version of the spec
> 
> PDF is complete shit for on-screen browsing, or for anything other than printing for that matter. HTML is good for on-screen browsing.

+1
PDF, ePUB, Kindle - all suffer from this problem.

-- 
Dejan Lekic
dejan.lekic (a) gmail.com
http://dejan.lekic.org

On 2/4/13 2:08 PM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:58:35 -0800
>> Walter Bright<newshound2@digitalmars.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> drop html docs from the dmd distribution?
>>
>> PLEASE NO.
>>
>>> They seem rather pointless, considering:
>>>
>>> 1. them being on the web is better anyway
>>
>> Not when you don't have internet access or when you need docs an older
>> version.
>>
>>> 2. the new pdf version of the spec
>>
>> PDF is complete shit for on-screen browsing, or for anything other than
>> printing for that matter. HTML is good for on-screen browsing.
>
> +1
> PDF, ePUB, Kindle - all suffer from this problem.

I wonder whether a big, continuous HTML would be a good possibility.

Andrei