[Lazarus] DocView and FPC documentation release

[Marco van de Voort]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 04:02:44PM +0200, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > But e.g. the fact that in the html output, see also has an description
> > and has links on top, goes for every lemma.
> 
> You cannot compare IPF format to HTML. You should compare it to RTF or PDF
> or something similar.

Why? See below.
 
But anyway, that was the whole point, because Graeme in his original DID
make a comparison, based on size with CHM and html. I merely pointed out
that that comparison had absolutely no merit.

> The HTML format is the most verbose, but this is because it intended as an
> on-line viewing system.

True. Most of the additional stuff is links. But not all. Like e.g. the see
also descriptions. (which are IMHO more useful in printed docs than in html)

> The RTF/PDF whatnot are meant for printing. If graeme based IPF on the
> linear writer, then it will be meant for printing

0. As far as I know, IPF was IBMs hyperlinked electronic document format.
1. the viewer has a paginated view like html or chm
2. the docview util has no printing ability.
3. It is not a format that printing programs can be commonly found for,
like pdf or rtf (or even html). 

I suspect the linear writing was more selected for convenience, and one
shouldn't read too much into that.