From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Windows CHM format for the documents
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:33:37 -0400
Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <m3brtswfha.fsf@chvatal.cbbrowne.com>
References: <200309080300.h88305423501@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<200309080926.43872.darko.prenosil@finteh.hr>
	<002601c3764d$34e68db0$152ca8c0@visiomode1>
	<60he3n5682.fsf@dev6.int.libertyrms.info>
	<001401c3773e$48634990$152ca8c0@visiomode1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:B5tebHd+GzljA7srKFdrSX99t9E=
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org

ilkka@visiomode.com wrote:
> I'm not sure if it would be a bad thing to give up DocBook, but I cannot see
> anything but benefits from using this other type of document development...

I cannot see anything but problems from using this.

- The current usage allows people to work on documents as files, using
  whatever editing tools they like.  With your "server software," that
  is lost.

- Current usage uses CVS to manage changes.  This allows changes to be
  looked at and approved/rejected/modified.  I haven't any idea if
  your system uses text files in behind, it sounds like not.

- Current usage does not mandate that anyone have a synchronous
  connection to a central server that becomes bottleneck / vulnerable
  point.  

The apparent "benefit" of your tool is that it provides a tool with a
user interface that slavishly follows the Windows "CHM file" viewer.
That may be an advantage to those that want to slavishly follow
Windows development/deployment "standards," but I daresay you're NOT
in a community that is particularly interested in that sort of thing.
-- 
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('aa454','freenet.carleton.ca').
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of *EVERYTHING* is crud.