This is the mail archive of the
ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: CVS docs PDF patch
On Thursday 31 October 2002 22:30, Bart Veer wrote:
> It seems a little bit strange to generate HTML for online reading and
> a separate PDF for online reading, and some users may get confused if
> there are two PDF's for each document. But if you think the
> differences between the two PDF's are worthwhile, I have no objection.
>
> Bart
Since the docs are more or less built on Linux (I don't know if the DocBook
and TeX tools work on cygwin), it seems more natural for the printed format
to be PS not PDF, making it suitable for PS printers or typesetters.
Indeed there are two printable GhostScript targets, but I suggest they should
produce a slightly different output:
PS should be in the standard printed DocBook format with
(define %two-side% #t) and (define %refentry-new-page% #t),
while the PDF should be a little simplified with
(define %two-side% #f) and (define %refentry-new-page% #f),
thus making it more suitable for net publishing.
According to my eCos doc web page statistics it seems that some percent of
visitors prefer to browse the PDF-s (not download) instead of browsing
HTML-s.
Have You already decided which paper size to use, A4 or US letter?
Iztok