"Marcel Meyer" <meyerm@fs.tum.de> wrote in message news:bv5vmj$26u6$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>.
> > 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*

Isn't there an automatic html to pdf converter?

>>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*
> 
> 
> Isn't there an automatic html to pdf converter?
> 
Well - you can print anything into PDF (it's a windows printer driver). But it will never look as good as LaTeX processed book.

In article <bv7qqq$2a5d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, ssuukk says...
>
>Well - you can print anything into PDF (it's a windows printer driver). But it will never look as good as LaTeX processed book.

I once had to write a LaTeX document, on half an hour's notice.
What I did was just copy the prolog and the epilog from  some
ready LaTeX document and then I quickly compared some source and
output to learn the few tags I would use. I finished the doc
on time!

You could amaze people here (no names mentioned ;-) by just posting a small example html snipped from the middle of a D document, and the same snippet in LaTeX.

----

The problem with LaTeX documentation is that it absolutely drowns you. And usually you only need like a half-dozen tags.

The more documentation you have, the less likely people are to actually read it.

Thus more concise documentation is better documentation.  If you can't make concise documentation, what you are trying to document is just too damn complex, and should be simplified.

Sean


"Georg Wrede" <Georg_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bv96na$1ivj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> The problem with LaTeX documentation is that it absolutely drowns you. And usually you only need like a half-dozen tags.

In article <bvak9a$ttn$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Sean L. Palmer says...
>
>The more documentation you have, the less likely people are to actually read it.
>
>Thus more concise documentation is better documentation.  If you can't make concise documentation, what you are trying to document is just too damn complex, and should be simplified.

True. The problem with LaTeX is that it has zillions of features, and the writers were diligent. But for the user who needs just a tag here and another there, it's a nightmare.

We need a "Trivial Intro to LaTex for D web page writers"! :-)

>"Georg Wrede" <Georg_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bv96na$1ivj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> The problem with LaTeX documentation is that it absolutely drowns you. And usually you only need like a half-dozen tags.
>
>

Georg Wrede wrote:
> True. The problem with LaTeX is that it has zillions of features,
> and the writers were diligent. But for the user who needs just a
> tag here and another there, it's a nightmare.
> 
> We need a "Trivial Intro to LaTex for D web page writers"! :-)

LaTeX is very simple to work with, if you don't need any special features. Which means that you are either using a standard template, or a template made by anyone who is good in Latex - meaning that you only need to care of content.

My recommandation would be O'Reillys pocket book "LaTeX kurz&gut" (in German here), if it's available in other languages. It's really tiny, 72 mini-pages. A good editor is also a lot of help. e.g.:

http://www.texniccenter.org/

-eye