I highly dispute that. If you really believe it, I don't know how I
can disabuse you, but it seems almost obvious to me.
> >>>>> "Per" == Per Bothner <bothner@cygnus.com> writes:
>
> Per> info is a dying "standard". If we stick with info, we are
> Per> relegating ourselves to obscurity. There are important
>
> not as long as the FSF sticks behind it.
The FSF writes only a small fraction of the open source code these
days, largely because it has succeeded. Richard should be very proud
-- his dream has come true, and many people no longer hoard their
sources. On the other hand, the fact that there are now thousands of
open source developers out there means that FSF no longer is the
center of development for very much, and is no longer in a position to
try to push something like info.
All linux docs these days are Docbook. All freebsd docs these days are
docbook. All ORA books are written with Docbook. Shall I go on?
> My attitude is that we already have a flexible documentation browser!
> why abandon it?
Because the only implementations of info I have aren't even as capable
as Netscape for reading most kinds of documentation, that's why. They
also can't deal with things like embedded graphics or external
links. I'm sorry, but info isn't that great.
I have used info, in one form or another, since 1983 or so. I cannot
say that it has not been a great help to me over the years. It is a
pleasant and flexible system for use on 80x24 terminals. I no longer
use a vt100 on my desk, though, and in fact have not used a terminal
like that since 1987.
Info simply doesn't have any momentum behind it.
> of course, I'm not suggesting we *only* distribute info. After all,
> there are translators out there. But as long as I have access to
> info, I'm happy.
We are planning on having a Docbook to Info translator.
Perry