| Previous by date: | 18 Jul 2001 23:04:07 -0000 Re: Archived Documents, David Merrill |
| Next by date: | 18 Jul 2001 23:04:07 -0000 Re: LinuxDoc vs. DocBook, was Re: part of the review? (fwd), David Merrill |
| Previous in thread: | 18 Jul 2001 23:04:07 -0000 Re: `article' vs `book'?, David Merrill |
| Next in thread: |
><book> is better for very large documents. We use it for our guides, >but use <article> for most (all?) our HOWTOs. PPP and Net are both book but they are both over 100 pages a piece. > > -- -- <COMPANY>CommandPrompt - http://www.commandprompt.com </COMPANY> <PROJECT>OpenDocs, LLC. - http://www.opendocs.org </PROJECT> <PROJECT>LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com </PROJECT> <WEBMASTER>LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org </WEBMASTER> -- Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. --
| Previous by date: | 18 Jul 2001 23:04:07 -0000 Re: Archived Documents, David Merrill |
| Next by date: | 18 Jul 2001 23:04:07 -0000 Re: LinuxDoc vs. DocBook, was Re: part of the review? (fwd), David Merrill |
| Previous in thread: | 18 Jul 2001 23:04:07 -0000 Re: `article' vs `book'?, David Merrill |
| Next in thread: |