• Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> Feb 03 2013
• Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> Feb 03 2013
• FG <home fgda.pl> Feb 03 2013
• "Nathan M. Swan" <nathanmswan gmail.com> Feb 03 2013
• Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> Feb 03 2013
• "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> Feb 03 2013
• Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic gmail.com> Feb 04 2013
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Feb 04 2013
• Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> Feb 04 2013
• "Kiith-Sa" <kiithsacmp gmail.com> Feb 03 2013
• Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> Feb 03 2013

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

They seem rather pointless, considering:

1. them being on the web is better anyway
2. the new pdf version of the spec

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

On 2/4/13, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway
 2. the new pdf version of the spec


They're used for CHM generation.

FG <home fgda.pl> writes:

On 2013-02-04 00:58, Walter Bright wrote:
 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway
 2. the new pdf version of the spec


Theoretically:
It's useful, because the docs' version matches the compiler,
while the website only lists current documentation.

Practically:
I'm quite sure few people read those offline html docs.

"Nathan M. Swan" <nathanmswan gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 00:26:06 UTC, FG wrote:
 On 2013-02-04 00:58, Walter Bright wrote:
 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway
 2. the new pdf version of the spec


 Theoretically:
 It's useful, because the docs' version matches the compiler,
 while the website only lists current documentation.

 Practically:
 I'm quite sure few people read those offline html docs.


I do, when I have no internet access.

NMS

Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:58:35 -0800
Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 drop html docs from the dmd distribution?


PLEASE NO.

 They seem rather pointless, considering:
 
 1. them being on the web is better anyway


Not when you don't have internet access or when you need docs an older
version.

 2. the new pdf version of the spec


PDF is complete shit for on-screen browsing, or for anything other than
printing for that matter. HTML is good for on-screen browsing.

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:53:32 -0500, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:58:35 -0800
 Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 drop html docs from the dmd distribution?


 PLEASE NO.

 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway


 Not when you don't have internet access or when you need docs an older
 version.


+1

-Steve

Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:

Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:58:35 -0800
 Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 drop html docs from the dmd distribution?


 PLEASE NO.
 
 They seem rather pointless, considering:
 
 1. them being on the web is better anyway


 Not when you don't have internet access or when you need docs an older
 version.
 
 2. the new pdf version of the spec


 PDF is complete shit for on-screen browsing, or for anything other than
 printing for that matter. HTML is good for on-screen browsing.


+1
PDF, ePUB, Kindle - all suffer from this problem.

-- 
Dejan Lekic
dejan.lekic (a) gmail.com
http://dejan.lekic.org

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

On 2/4/13 2:08 PM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:58:35 -0800
 Walter Bright<newshound2 digitalmars.com>  wrote:
 drop html docs from the dmd distribution?


 PLEASE NO.

 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway


 Not when you don't have internet access or when you need docs an older
 version.

 2. the new pdf version of the spec


 PDF is complete shit for on-screen browsing, or for anything other than
 printing for that matter. HTML is good for on-screen browsing.


 +1
 PDF, ePUB, Kindle - all suffer from this problem.


I wonder whether a big, continuous HTML would be a good possibility.

Andrei

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2013-02-04 23:29, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 I wonder whether a big, continuous HTML would be a good possibility.


I would rather like to have a first page which list all symbols with a 
filter, just like the Ruby docs:

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.9.3/

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

"Kiith-Sa" <kiithsacmp gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 23:58:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway
 2. the new pdf version of the spec


I use the included HTML docs when I have no internet
access (e.g. in train, which is 2hr/day for me).

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 2/3/2013 3:58 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway
 2. the new pdf version of the spec


Ok, everyone, you made your point! They stay.