Re: Proof-reading manuals (was Re: Rmail mbox-format branch)

[Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu>]

Richard Stallman wrote:

       For lispref this way of organizing things may be reasonable, but for
       man it makes no sense.  It might be nice to have things like
       man/cl.texi updated, but such things are a luxury right now.  What we
       worry about now is the Emacs and Elisp manual and info.texi.

   I agree.  Could you remove the other files from the `man' list, keeping
   only info.texi and those that are part of the Emacs manual?
   Also, remove gfdl.texi and gpl.texi if they are included.

Done.

I removed man/faq.texi, because it has nothing to do with the Emacs manual.
Should we add man/faq.texi as something that should be updated?

I removed man/ack.texi, because it is already listed separately.

I still have to take care of some problems in some of the chapters I
read and marked with LT.  I have not yet sent my suggested changes for
man/text.texi.

The original aim was to have everything proofread by at
least two persons.  For the Elisp manual, that seems unrealistic now.

For the Emacs manual, it might be better if we kept that standard, if
possible.  For instance, I did read man/mule.texi, but I am not a
heavy user of that stuff.  Thus it might be better if somebody using
it more heavily would double check it.  There are other instances like
that.

The Emacs manual could easily be checked by somebody not knowing
Texinfo.  The way we have organized things now (referring to the .texi
files) might not be very understandable to such a person.

Sincerely,

Luc.