hgbook on bitbucket; was: hgbook is broken?

[Paul R]

Doug,

PDF is just not the same as HTML. The only point of producing a PDF
version of such a documentation is for offline reading and printing. For
all the rest, HTML is the right tool, precisely designed for this job.

Doug> Probably. I'm using FireFox 2 on (shudder) Windows XP and FireFox
Doug> 3 on Mac OS X 10.5 Of course if Linux is behind the curve here..

Yah, of course, linux if off the WWW :)

Doug> Precisely the point of using PDF, it isn't dependent on yet
Doug> another semi-adopted semi-borked up semi-web-standard. Getting
Doug> HTML right across different browsers isn't trivial. Just look at
Doug> all the hg style machinations. PDF is at least immune from all
Doug> that crap. And it looks exactly the same because it doesn't depend
Doug> on silly browser rendering differences.

Please fix the right tool, don't sacrifice web browsers as a whole.
Following www.w3.org, pages render the same on any decent browser, that
means anything but MSIE. And I bet you can use some fancy PDF
instruction that won't render the same on different readers. Think of
gradients, animations etc.

Doug> No, it was an attempt to cut a gordian knot. I was serious. Why
Doug> take on the HTML headache if you already have a cross platform
Doug> portable document format

Because HTML is world linkable and browsable ? Because HTML is all about
content rather than about layout ? I would never - ever, open the PDF
version unless I forced to because I'm offline or I want to print it.

Doug> (yes, it isn't perfect, but it is 10 damn-sights better than
Doug> HTML).

Yeah, and PDF is also 10 damn-sights better than carrot cake, right ?

-- 
  Paul