Re: CVS docs PDF patch

[Bart Veer <bartv at ecoscentric dot com>]

>>>>> "Iztok" == Iztok Zupet <iztok.zupet@vsr.si> writes:

    Iztok> 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

    Iztok> Since the docs are more or less built on Linux (I don't
    Iztok> know if the DocBook and TeX tools work on cygwin), it seems
    Iztok> more natural for the printed format to be PS not PDF,
    Iztok> making it suitable for PS printers or typesetters.

TeX and the DocBook tools probably should work under cygwin, with
little porting required. Essentially they just involve transforming
files from one format to another, there are few OS dependencies.
I do not know whether anybody has actually done the porting.

Although it might seem more natural for the printed format to be PS
rather than PDF, I believe that the PS files will be significantly
larger than the equivalent PDF's. Not a good idea for an FTP site.

    Iztok> Indeed there are two printable GhostScript targets, but I
    Iztok> suggest they should produce a slightly different output:

    Iztok> PS should be in the standard printed DocBook format with
    Iztok>  (define %two-side% #t) and (define %refentry-new-page% #t),

    Iztok> while the PDF should be a little simplified with
    Iztok>  (define %two-side% #f) and (define %refentry-new-page% #f),
    Iztok> thus making it more suitable for net publishing.

I think I would prefer refentry-new-page to be #t for all formats.
That does increase the number of pages a bit, but refentry's are
essentially man pages and are nearly always kept on separate pages
irrespective of the format.

    Iztok> According to my eCos doc web page statistics it seems that
    Iztok> some percent of visitors prefer to browse the PDF-s (not
    Iztok> download) instead of browsing HTML-s.

    Iztok> Have You already decided which paper size to use, A4 or US
    Iztok> letter?

I am not sure that is a decision I should be making. My own printer is
usually loaded with A4 paper, so if I decided to print out some
documentation A4 would be more convenient for me. That is not a good
enough reason for a project-wide decision.

IIRC, A4 is 210mm by 297mm and US letter is 8.5in by 11.0in,
equivalent to 216mm by 279mm. So US letter is slightly wider, hence
less likely to give hbox overflows, but only slightly. Maybe that is
a valid reason for preferring US letter.

Perhaps you should take this discussion to ecos-discuss. It is
possible that somebody there has more experience with this sort of
thing.

Bart