Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 17 Oct 1996 18:53:23 -0400
From:      Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To:        bogusz@lib.amu.edu.pl
Cc:        freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: A PostScript editor
Message-ID:  <199610172253.SAA14398@hill.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.961016203244.30723A-100000@lib.amu.edu.pl> (message from Bogusz Jelinski on Wed, 16 Oct 1996 20:58:35 %2B0100 (MET))

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

   I'd like to write a manual for my software and because
   it should contain charts, schemas and so on it cannot
   be an ascii file. Would anyone suggest any up-to-date
   file format : PostScript, MS Word (forgive my mentioning
   it), HTML, Acrobat, dvi.

I personally recommend LaTeX (or, for the Real Tech Writers,
TeX... and you can use TECO to edit it. :-) ) LaTeX produces excellent
output, partially because it's a typesetter, not a WYSIWYG editor.
That is to say, you can use emacs, pico, teco, vi, Windows notepad, or
whatever you want to type in a file that says what your document is
supposed to contain, then run LaTeX over it.  LaTeX then produces a
DVI file, which can be run through dvi2ps to produce your PostScript
output.  It produces better output than MS Word or other popular word
processors because it can work on the overall pages as a whole, and
take its time making decisions.  If putting a line break here makes an
orphan line down there, then that can be handled.  Word processors
have to make these decisions real-time, so they don't have the liberty
of making as many calculations and decisions.  Many of the foo.ps
files you see out there were generated using TeX or LaTeX.

HTML really isn't suitable for making printed documentation.  It is
designed for content over presentation because the same HTML document
must be readable on everything from ASCII terminals to high-resolution
workstations.  In producing a manual, you don't need to worry about
this, so something with more presentation controil is advisable.

The GNU project uses TeXinfo for their documentation.  It is designed
to be easily converted to TeX or info (a special hypertext format used
by emacs).  Later on, TeXinfo to HTML converters were designed.
However, if the printed page is your concern, I find TeX or LaTeX to
be more well-rounded.

I haven't dealt with Adobe Acrobat, but I would tend to steer you
toward LaTeX instead.  It is free software, and because of that it has
extentions for every conceivable purpose.

   As I prefer PostScript I am looking for
   a PS-editor - it should generate .ps files. Is there such a tool
   (not necessarily a free of charge one)?
   There must be - there are so many docs.ps in the ftp-archives.

You can actually use any text editor to generate .ps files, but I
don't recommend it.  Most .ps files are generated by TeX or other
tools.

Cheers,
Joel



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610172253.SAA14398>