From: dpg@cs.nott.ac.uk (Dave `geek' Gymer)
Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide
Subject: Re: HyperTextish stuff
Date: 16 Nov 92 09:46:21 GMT
Reply-To: dpg@cs.nott.ac.uk (Dave Gymer)
Distribution: alt
Organization: Association of Slack Producing Geeks

In article <1992Nov11.223716.6341@primerd.prime.com> jasonp@sunbabe.Prime.COM (Jason Pascucci) writes:
>I'm looking for a point-and-click/scroll kind of index, as well as a search,
>basically. 

I think TUG! 2 should have something like this, although the exact
details of the interface haven't been worked out yet (one reason why a
post like yours is useful).  TUG! 0.22 allowed you to look at a list of
all the index entries, and then pick one from there; effectively doing
the same job, just with the added inconvenience of having to type the
article number of the entry of interest (for which the TAB completion
doesn't help much).

>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. 
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What you've just asked for requires a complete text editor to be built
into the browser.  Either it's gonna be a really crummy editor, or this
is going to bloat the browser beyond sensible limits.  The only way
round I can see is to let you select xrefs either before or after you do
the editing; this might actually be a Good Thing, since you could then
update xrefs to other articles on the fly.  Thoughts, anyone?

>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.

I remain skeptical about this.  Would you be happier if the editors were
to accept entries in any format, and agree to add the headers
themselves?  (Fear not, Paul and Steve, I'm suggesting for a minute that
you actually do this!)

>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.

alt.sex, huh?  Hmm, wonder what sort of entries we'd get from there...

>>[Notes about binary distributions and autoconf deleted.]
>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.

Which half-dozen?  I could start trying to list all the different UNIX
platforms that people might want to compile TUG! 2 on, but, I think
you'll agree, it comes to rather more than 6.  Or 10.  Or 20.  Hell, if
my 386 running Linux can't run binaries from other 386 Unices, why
should I expect to provide binaries for more than a handful of the more
common Unices?

If you want to volunteer to provide binaries for you particular flavors
of UNIX, fine, but don't expect me or anyone else to compile up a
browser on any system that someone wants it on, it just isn't practical,
or desirable, given that TUG! is covered by the GNU GPL.

>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.)

Have you known _any_ piece of non-trivial UNIX software that compiled on
both BSD and SysV with no source changes?  Nope, me neither; the variety
of Unices is quite alarming!

What have you got against Autoconf?  It's not exactly difficult to edit
a Makefile.in into a Makefile even if you can't run a configure script
(and I can't think why you shouldn't be able to).

Imake is nice if you've got X (I finally got it installed on my PC under
Linux a coupla weeks ago), but it doesn't solve all portability issues,
just, in general, X-related ones.

>>[Stuff about finding a DOS box deleted.]
>Wrongo, BeetleBreath. [...]

Ouch!  `BeetleBreath'!  Now that hurts!  :-)
-- 
`Grave' Dave Gymer
Life is like a grapefruit.
-- 
`Grave' Dave Gymer | Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which
42 St Mary's Park  | can be adequately explained by stupidity." Finagle's
Louth, Lincs       | Law: "The perversity of the universe tends towards a
LN11 0EF, England  | maximum." (Quoted from the jargon file. Thanks ESR!)
Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide