The documentation can be generated on Windows if you install miktex. I do it regularly at work.

but I do think a > documentation snapshot (including the html version)

The HTML cannot be generated on Windows. In general, the use of the HTML docs is deprecated, since the quality of the conversion is below all standards IMHO. (despite some good work done by Peter Vreman to improve it's quality) PDF was, is, and will continue to be, the reference documentation as far as I'm concerned.

I have just updated the docs, and I am still updating them. I keep all mails regarding the docs in a todo list. I don't see the use of a documentation snapshot since they are not updated on a day-to-day basis, so I consider it a waste of effort.

Also, the behaviour of the snapshots may change. Keeping the docs up-to-date with that would require much time; it is only when we release a version that I document new features, since then the changes have a more 'permanent' character.

I am, of course, always open for comments/suggestions regarding the docs...

Michael.

I know that Michael (slightly?) prefers pdf ('deprecation' of the html version seems a bit strong!), but on a windoze system html version is much better for navigation around docs using ones web browser ... so tho' quality, as you put it, isn't so good it's certainly preferable for me and, I guess the non trivial nos of fpc users (especially new ones) who have windoze.

I didn't mention daily snapshots just one every month or so eg one about now...so users could use & make comments on the latest version and not one that is too long out of date & of course, based on comments above I'd favour doing a 'snapshot' of html (as well as pdf etc) - I'd do it myself if html doc gen worked in windoze.

The documentation is good in fpc (for which you should all be congratulated) & imo, it's very as important to improve it & keep it up to date - don't forget that for non developers or non gurus it's even more important. Regards John

John wrote

I know that Michael (slightly?) prefers pdf ('deprecation' of the html version seems a bit strong!)

It cannot be said strongly enough :-)
I will NEVER take arguments into consideration that mention HTML.

What is the advantage of HTML in your opinion ?
- Both are hyperlinked formats.
- PDF is standard searchable, HTML is not.
- PDF has good print quality, HTML has not - it even cannot print multiple sections.
- PDF has a handy bookmark pane, HTML has not.
- PDF is a standard format, HTML is rendered differently depending on your browser and it's settings.

And then I leave out the fact that the HTML is imperfect, and renders absolutely horrible, because that is - I admit - largely a matter of taste. The above are more or less objective, verifiable advantages of PDF.

It unfortunately doesn't even work well on Linux, you need the almost absolute latest latex2html in order to get some correct output :(

The documentation is good in fpc (for which you should all be congratulated) & imo, it's very as important to improve it & keep it up to date - don't forget that for non developers or non gurus it's even more important.

I couldn't agree more where that is concerned, and I do my best for that. As I said, any comments/suggestions are welcome.

That is, as long as they concern the content, not the HTML layout :-)

Michael.

That's what I like on a Fri afternoon, someone coming right off the fence... difficult to respond w/o mentioning the 4 letter word h*** (it used to be 'never mention the euro' but now it's obviously changed), but on my p233 + my p650 under w*****, I can read & navigate the docs easier & faster with h??? than with PDF just by clicking on 'favourites'... I don't normally need to print them...

Anyway forgetting about h... (which I suppose you'll find quite easy!)... you seem to agree (or not disagree anyway) that a more up to date doc snapshot would be good, so if you have one why not just put one onto fpc/ftp every now & then eg under \latest_docs\ with readme saying...beta docn release? In return, I'll keep making suggestions about them, & will try not to mention, you-know-what. I'll certainly deprecate its use in future (except where it's ok)... Regards John
----------------------

I know that Michael (slightly?) prefers pdf ('deprecation' of the html version seems a bit strong!)

It cannot be said strongly enough :-)
I will NEVER take arguments into consideration that mention HTML.

but on a windoze system html version is much better for navigation around docs using ones web browser ... so tho' quality, as you put it, isn't so good it's certainly preferable for me

and,

I guess the non trivial nos of fpc users (especially new ones) who have windoze.

What is the advantage of HTML in your opinion ?
- Both are hyperlinked formats.
- PDF is standard searchable, HTML is not.
- PDF has good print quality, HTML has not - it even cannot print multiple sections.
- PDF has a handy bookmark pane, HTML has not.
- PDF is a standard format, HTML is rendered differently depending on your browser and it's settings.

And then I leave out the fact that the HTML is imperfect, and renders absolutely
horrible, because that is - I admit - largely a matter of taste. The above are
more or less objective, verifiable advantages of PDF.

I didn't mention daily snapshots just one every month or so eg one about now...so users could use & make comments on the latest version and not one that is too long out of date & of course, based on comments above I'd

favour

doing a 'snapshot' of html (as well as pdf etc) - I'd do it myself if html doc gen worked in windoze.

It unfortunately doesn't even work well on Linux, you need the almost absolute
latest latex2html in order to get some correct output :(

The documentation is good in fpc (for which you should all be

congratulated)

& imo, it's very as important to improve it & keep it up to date - don't forget that for non developers or non gurus it's even more important.

I couldn't agree more where that is concerned, and I do my best for that. As I said, any comments/suggestions are welcome.

That is, as long as they concern the content, not the HTML layout :-)

Michael.

FYI, there is a recent snapshot (only the fsplit remark missing) available in html. It even includes the examples correct.

Excellent, where is that? Can it pls be put onto fpc\ftp\ ? regds John

you wrote

Excellent, where is that? Can it pls be put onto fpc\ftp\ ? regds John

Zip files are available from the default location: ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/fpc/docs/

And they are also online available from the website

Peter

Lee, John ha scritto:

I know that Michael (slightly?) prefers pdf ('deprecation' of the html version seems a bit strong!), but on a windoze system html version is much

I think the same, *not* only on windoze system...
Html is a well spread standard, available on most computers, and IMHO it's results are not so bad.
I hate pdf - for example, you can not export graphics; you can't convert a pdf (or part of it) in anything else, unless you have I suppose some tool from Adobe. Yesterday I've downloaded a pdf file, and I was not able to view it because it was not compatible with reader 3.0. I had to download the reader v4.0, and wait for a long 1 hour download. It is the same story as M$ winword, if you don't have the latest version you're out. By me, HTML is a perfect standard for documentation and is a *real* standard. Pdf is a standard invented by someone who is trying to get money out of it.

Have you seen the text (plain ascii) documentation? Why it is so crippled? If the original one was written in html, I bet, the ascii one would be much, much, better...

The only advantage of pdf is, by me, that a single file is generated. May be it is not always good...
May be writing pdf could be easier or faster than writing html. May be...

Have you seen the text (plain ascii) documentation? Why it is so crippled? If the original one was written in html, I bet, the ascii one would be much, much, better...

The docs sources are LaTeX for obvious reasons.

Hmm. On my p166+, html Adobe Reader navigated faster than Netscape/IE. You can also make shortcuts somewhere for the PDF files.

Under Linux or Mac, this is even more the case.

Marco van de Voort ( or )

First: I agree with Michael, and I also tested building the docs. The PDF docs look at least ten times better, are easier generated usually without the slightest fault in the conversion (only errors in the original source trigger errors in the output), and nearly every driver CD contains Adobe Reader nowadays, so that accessability is also not a problem. (besides IMHO an HTML browser is also still an add on, and not an OS-subsystem, even if M$ tries to convince you)

Actually We would prefer to have both (and more) versions. The real problem is that the HTML conversion (as Michael said) is problematic. Creating LaTex to HTML converters is not our core "business", (and the script that does it is over 1 MB, so it isn't something you do overnight)

We will keep trying to improve the HTML docs, but don't expect dramatic improvements. Latex2HTML is too problematic, and the docs size are too big for that.

We simply need PDF for its quality, printability etc, and HTML for its non GUI features:
e.g. as helpfile in the IDE and I also use the HTML version from time to time on the *nix commandline. (GUI's are a waste of expensive memory :-)

Next week I hope to get unmetered access, and I'll try to setup such thing.

The documentation is good in fpc (for which you should all be congratulated) & imo, it's very as important to improve it & keep it up to date - don't forget that for non developers or non gurus it's even more important.

You don't have to be a guru to install adobe reader, nor its . In fact it is simpler than messing with either Netscape or IE.

Marco van de Voort ( or )

Yup, thanks, the new html version there works much better than the released one, I hadn't spotted that the html docs had been updated since the release... - I didn't spot your announcement of an update to the html documents eg on [devel] either...Regards John

I didn't say that one needs to be guru to install Adobe or IE - they are nomally installed anyway on most companies'(and many private users') windoze machines (dunno about linux ones). What I did say was that keeping docs up as to date as poss. is important for fpc overall, and especially for the (many?) non guru users! This is partly because, malheuresement, fpc developers are sometimes/often? _not_ very good at announcing the availability of new fpc facilites/functions/updates etc to non developers ie ordinary users, so how the h*** (html?) are we supposed to find out about things otherwise... except of course by trying to follow the discussion in email groups like this one, which is never less than challenging! John

The documentation is good in fpc (for which you should all be

congratulated)

& imo, it's very as important to improve it & keep it up to date - don't forget that for non developers or non gurus it's even more important.

You don't have to be a guru to install adobe reader, nor its . In fact it is simpler than messing with either Netscape or IE.

Hmmm, so we need some kind of marketing manager who tells people about futures
of FPC which will be available in 2 years ;)?

BTW: Recently I read in a German forum that FPC has a good marketing :)!

Florian Klaempfl wrote

BTW: Recently I read in a German forum that FPC has a good marketing :)!

Heise Newsticker I guess...?
That reminds me of something different: That c't didn't mention FPC at all until now. It's time to change this, I think ;)

- Sebastian

The reason that I only put new features in the docs when a release is made, is that then we are more or less sure that it works fine. I believe I explained this more or less in one of the earlier mails...

Errors and other small inconsistencies can of course be fixed all the time.

Actually, I had more or less expected some mails now with lists of errors in the docs, certainly after the (heated) discussions on the mailing list. Except for Thomas Schatzl (for which my thanks), no-one reacted to report bugs. If I were a naive dreamer, I could of course conclude that there are no bugs in the docs :) :)

So once more, if people find errors, please take the time to drop me a line and tell me about it.

Michael.

This is a slight? (sarcastic or ironic?) misrepresentation of my words...marketing is what we don't want. My point was that we do need to know about changes happening eg in snapshots now! There are more of these which noone bothers to report than I can mention w/o someone complaining about the length of my emails... eg where was the one saying BTW 'out' is from now on an fpc keyword? But maybe I missed it...John

(many?) non guru users! This is partly because, malheuresement, fpc developers are sometimes/often? _not_ very good at announcing the availability of new fpc facilites/functions/updates etc to non developers

ie

ordinary users, so how the h*** (html?) are we supposed to find out about things otherwise...

Hmmm, so we need some kind of marketing manager who tells people about futures
of FPC which will be available in 2 years ;)?

BTW: Recently I read in a German forum that FPC has a good marketing :)!

We try to keep developers informed about changes, see README file in the compiler dir (I think it was suggested by you).

But sometimes this fails because someone forgets to update the README file (in the out case me), sorry.