Re: Moving Files for Hardcopy to PDF and HTML

[Joe Miller <joemiller -at- CANBERRA -dot- COM>]

Martha R. Breil replied:

>I think that producing both HTML and PDF documentation may be overkill,
>but I don't know the specifics.  I definitely wouldn't want to update
>three sets of docs every time something changed...

What you and I think about producing both HTML and PDF doesn't count
here <g>.  This is the (current) decision of the VP for Marketing and Sales,
the Marketing Manager and the Product Director.  And if you look back my
original post, you'll see that I said "using one set of source files"; I don't
want to update three sets of docs either!

>Generally, you should use either internal or external links to take the
>user to the (table, caption, graphic, etc), to which you refer.

Not knowing the details of HTML, I didn't know you could do that, but
it makes sense, and gives the reader the choice of looking at the pix
file or not.

>What conversion software are you using to get the hard copy docs into
>HTML?  The ones I've used leave much to be desired and don't produce
>very clean HTML.

The docs have been laid out in Ventura, which (in V7) allows files to be
published as HTML.  You're right in saying that its HTML output leaves
a lot to be desired, but since the manuals already exist as Ventura
files, it'll be awkward (and resource intensive) to start all over in another
program.

>> or do you just leave the textual cross-references in place as an exercise
>>for the reader?
>
>I don't know what you're getting at here.  I definitely would not leave
>it up to the reader to find the text without linking them to it.

By "textual cross-reference", I mean the phrase, "see figure 2.3".  With
no caption pointing out that this is figure 2.3, leaving that reference in
place is counterproductive.  But if it's possible to make a link to the pix
file, it looks like the problem goes away.

>Hope it helps,
 
Yes, your comments did help... thanks!

--Joe
joemiller -at- canberra -dot- com