CVS docs PDF patch

[Iztok Zupet]

On Thursday 31 October 2002 22:30, Bart Veer wrote:
> It seems a little bit strange to generate HTML for online reading and
> a separate PDF for online reading, and some users may get confused if
> there are two PDF's for each document. But if you think the
> differences between the two PDF's are worthwhile, I have no objection.
>
> Bart

Since the docs are more or less built on Linux (I don't know if the DocBook 
and TeX tools work on cygwin), it seems more natural for the printed format 
to be PS not PDF, making it suitable for PS printers or typesetters.

Indeed there are two printable GhostScript targets, but I suggest they should 
produce a slightly different output:

PS should be in the standard printed DocBook format with
 (define %two-side% #t) and (define %refentry-new-page% #t),

while the PDF should be a little simplified with
 (define %two-side% #f) and (define %refentry-new-page% #f),
thus making it more suitable for net publishing.

According to my eCos doc web page statistics it seems that some percent of 
visitors prefer to browse the PDF-s (not download) instead of browsing 
HTML-s.

Have You already decided which paper size to use, A4 or US letter?

Iztok