From: jasonp@sunbabe.Prime.COM (Jason Pascucci)
Subject: Re: HyperTextish stuff
Organization: ComputerVision Services
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:37:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.120910.2278@cs.nott.ac.uk>, dpg@cs.nott.ac.uk (Dave `geek' Gymer) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov9.041808.2215@primerd.prime.com> jasonp@sunbabe.Prime.COM (Jason Pascucci) writes:
|> As for indexing, I don't get what you're after here; TUG! 0.22 allowed
|> you to browse the entry index, and TG! for DOS also allows access to
|> the index (I can't remember exactly how; it's been a while since I
|> looked at TG! for DOS in any great depth).

I'm looking for a point-and-click/scroll kind of index, as well as a search,
basically. 

|> In terms of writing entries, I don't think there is very much help a
|> program can give you, although I'll probably put a feature in TUG! 2
|> which creates a skeleton entry, invokes an editor, then mails it to a
|> set address (of a guide editor).  If someone _really_ wants to be
|> clever, they could write an emacs mode to edit guide entries... my
|> emacs lisp isn't up to it!  Come to think of it, it should be possible
|> to write a whole browser in emacs lisp... any volunteers?  :-)

The help a program can give you is immessurable. Picture:
You are browsing through an entry on Good Drinks, and you
have a great idea for an article on Gin's I have known. *click*,
up comes the window with skeleton, you type your entry, add in some
cross references, hopefully also a point-and-click operation, and
*click* you send it off. Simple. No tapdancing required. 

|> So you think the lack of a decent browser is causing the shortage of
|> articles that we seem to be suffering?  I doubt that very much; it's
|> so easy to read articles with nothing more than less (pun intended)
|> that I don't see why that should stop people.

No, I think the lack of a easy way to submit articles, which should
be very closely tied into the browser, is the reason. That, and
that many people unsubscribed to this newsgroup because it was
quickly turning into a abortion. When (not now) you can present
a concerted and integrated front, then you can post to all the various 
newsgroups (rec.lit, alt.sex, whatever) about this, and you will get
some response.

|> As for binary distributions, I hope you're not suggesting that TUG! 2
|> should be distributed in binary form; apart from anything else, this
|> is likely to encourage people to break the terms of the license (the
|> GNU GPL), and in any case, for a UNIX browser you would have to
|> compile a truly phenominal number of TUG!s on different machines.  It
|> would also discourage people from tinkering with the source, improving
|> it, and fixing bugs.  If you're worried about installation, one of my
|> major aims for TUG! 2 is an automated configuration scheme, based on
|> GNU Autoconf, which should make compiling it a breeze.

1) Yes I am. You have to compile it for about a half-dozen platforms,
which IS NOT A BIG DEAL. Take a look at the netrek example. It's been
done, and is fairly reasonable to maintain.

2) Gnu Autoconf is a real abortion in and of itself, and while I don't
think you shouldn't use it, include a 'normal' Makefile. You shouldn't
be doing *that* many funny implementation-specific things, if you are,
then you are clearly doing something fairly major wrong. (I, personally,
prefer the Imake/xmkmf idiom for dealing with similar things. But
you are only assured to have it on an X platform.)

|> In any case, I think most people have access to a DOS box, to at least
|> browse the guide until TUG! 2 hits the streets in released form.

Wrongo, BeetleBreath. Many people (like myself) don't care enough
to bother doing the dance you have to do to get stuff over
to a PC, making the very shakey assumption you have ANY form of 
interconnectivity. I will do ftp, uncompress, untar, make, bugfix, make, 
run. Anything else isn't worth my limited time. 

--
Jason R. Pascucci
jasonp@primerd.prime.com
Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide