"ssuukk" <ssuukk@.go2.pl> wrote in message news:bur0rr$2qpg$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Awww. So maybe in such case we'll make it the opposite way: I believe that latex2html will make much nicer pages, than by-hand html. ;-) Not to mention LateX is more strict about formatting.

It took me years to learn html!

ssuukk wrote:

>> Do you mean with `rough', that the indentation is not continued, when a new page starts?
> Well if you find such place - tell me. But I doub't such things can happen in LaTeX.

You are right. A closer look told me, that your document is two-sided, i.e. well suited for printing. Therefore the indentation only seems to discontinue on a terminal.

So long.
-- 
Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/ 2EA56D6D4DC41ABA311615946D3248A1

Walter wrote:

> This is great work. The old one is getting pretty outdated. Could you add in the ctod.html, etc., pages too?

It is easy to have an up-to-date single html: simply cat the files together. At least IE does not complain.

If you want an up-to-date pdf for reading, then install pdfcreator from http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/ and simply print the single html from IE.

Attached is a gawk-script that I use for making the single html. It has to be run with `gawk -f all.awk < toc.html > all.html'. Of course `all.awk' should be replaced by the name you choose to save the gawk- script to and the command above must be executed in the directory where the docs reside.

So long.
-- 
Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/ 2EA56D6D4DC41ABA311615946D3248A1

>>Awww. So maybe in such case we'll make it the opposite way: I believe
>>that latex2html will make much nicer pages, than by-hand html. ;-) Not
>>to mention LateX is more strict about formatting.
> 
> 
> It took me years to learn html!
> 
But you don't think I converted HTML to LaTeX by hand, do you? :-)

"ssuukk" <ssuukk@.go2.pl> wrote in message news:bv2ip9$2lsc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >>Awww. So maybe in such case we'll make it the opposite way: I believe that latex2html will make much nicer pages, than by-hand html. ;-) Not to mention LateX is more strict about formatting.
> >
> >
> > It took me years to learn html!
> >
> But you don't think I converted HTML to LaTeX by hand, do you? :-)

I have no idea how hard latex is. I'll take your word for it such a method is impractical <g>.

I'm used to HTML because it is similar to the old DEC Runoff format.

>>>>Awww. So maybe in such case we'll make it the opposite way: I believe
>>>>that latex2html will make much nicer pages, than by-hand html. ;-) Not
>>>>to mention LateX is more strict about formatting.
>>>
>>>
>>>It took me years to learn html!
>>>
>>
>>But you don't think I converted HTML to LaTeX by hand, do you? :-)
> 
> 
> I have no idea how hard latex is. I'll take your word for it such a method
> is impractical <g>.
> 
> I'm used to HTML because it is similar to the old DEC Runoff format.
> 
Well - since printed documentation is much nicer to read, and since in the final version it will be with nice index, and any other things good book needs, and since it is much more work to do html2latex (it took me several days to make it look like it is now) than latex2html (it's automatic), I guess - for the Final Big Manual Update it would be better to do it LaTeX to HTML - the result will look much better than by-hand HTML. :-) But that's only my suggestion. LaTeX is very simple and its source is much cleaner to read by human, than HTML. I can send you the source for this pdf, if you want to see how it looks like.

DEC Runoff? That must be "HP Runoff" by now? ;-)

>>>>>Awww. So maybe in such case we'll make it the opposite way: I believe that latex2html will make much nicer pages, than by-hand html. ;-) Not to mention LateX is more strict about formatting.
>>>>It took me years to learn html!
>>>But you don't think I converted HTML to LaTeX by hand, do you? :-)
>> I have no idea how hard latex is. I'll take your word for it such a method is impractical <g>.
> Well - since printed documentation is much nicer to read, and since in the final version it will be with nice index, and any other things good book needs, and since it is much more work to do html2latex (it took me several days to make it look like it is now) than latex2html (it's automatic), I guess - for the Final Big Manual Update it would be better to do it LaTeX to HTML - the result will look much better than by-hand HTML. :-) But that's only my suggestion. LaTeX is very simple and its source is much cleaner to read by human, than HTML. I can send you the source for this pdf, if you want to see how it looks like.

A voice from the off... ;-)

We are using LaTeX to even create our internal "magazine" (~1000 pcs / release) - the impulsiv. It just looks great with a sensible amount of work. And later it is just converted to HTML and can be brought online.

You should _really_ go the LaTeX (or lout - a nice LaTeX alternative ;-) )
to HTML way. Trust me (and ssuukk) - especially since LaTeX was once
developed to write a -- sorry, the computer science book *g*

ssuukk wrote:

> Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...
Could you also offer the .ps file as download? The .tex file would be a nice add on! :-)

        Marcel

> 
>>Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give
>>your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...
> 
> Could you also offer the .ps file as download? The .tex file would be a nice
> add on! :-)
> 
Well - I can surely give you my *.tex source, but not fonts :-> I can try to generate PS, but I am not sure if my configs are right. I use PdfLaTeX, not LaTeX->DVI->DVIPS->PSPDF :-)

ssuukk wrote:

>> 
>>>Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...
>>
>> Could you also offer the .ps file as download? The .tex file would be a nice add on! :-)
>> 
> Well - I can surely give you my *.tex source, but not fonts :-> I can try to generate PS, but I am not sure if my configs are right. I use PdfLaTeX, not LaTeX->DVI->DVIPS->PSPDF :-)
Great - perhaps I can then try to build a PS file. (of course with other
fonts ;-) )

Just mail the files to me.
Thanks