5 ms·
As noted there are already HTML versions of the manpages that work without apparent issue. It makes me think about having the documentation converted to html a
by jandrese 2y ago
As noted there are already HTML versions of the manpages that work without apparent issue. It makes me think about having the documentation converted to html and then have a thin script that invokes w3m on the correct file.
Then again GNU tried something similar with the info pages and it never really caught on. I think that was more due to the info program being kinda hard to use and the search facility being awkward.
- PhilipRoman 2y agoman -H
- WhyNotHugo 2y ago> It makes me think about having the documentation converted to html and then have a thin script that invokes w3m on the correct file. `mandoc -T html` will do this for you with functional links between man pages and links to sections inside man pages.
- taeric 2y agoGNU trying with info pages was largely hampered by the fragmented UNIX world of the day? I seem to recall various UNIX controllers were far more active in standards and such than they seem to be today. Specifically, I don't think any one company had the dominance that would be needed to drive a large migration. Not that I'm certain that company exists today. There does seem to have been more consolidation than we had back then.
- jandrese 2y agoI think it was more hampered by the default viewer program operating like EMACS, which if you're a regular EMACS user is great if you're not it is not terribly ergonomic. What was the command to find the next search item? Ctrl-X N?
- cafard 2y agoI didn't think info was at all bad. But the boss who had responded 'uh-hu' to a demo of documentation in Linux, responded 'Wow!' to the same document converted to HTML and displayed in Mosaic. These days, I suppose that I only see info in connection with Emacs.