From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs-Xtra Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:40:19 +0300 Message-ID: References: <17469.29694.605871.59144@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <17469.53282.265431.557135@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <4nd5flnwtg.fsf@asimov.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nek002s4h.fsf@asimov.bwh.harvard.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1145027675 10133 80.91.229.2 (14 Apr 2006 15:14:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:14:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 14 17:14:30 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUQ09-0005Td-MD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:14:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUQ09-0001xA-0Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:14:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FUPzi-0001n8-IE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:13:58 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FUPzc-0001ga-KQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:13:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUPzc-0001gJ-8w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:13:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.41.67] (helo=mx20.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1FUPzb-0001u1-5w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:13:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.20] (helo=nitzan.inter.net.il) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FUPTE-0005DE-M0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:40:24 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-214-179.inter.net.il [83.130.214.179]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DDG11391 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:40:19 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: Ted Zlatanov In-reply-to: <4nek002s4h.fsf@asimov.bwh.harvard.edu> (message from Ted Zlatanov on Fri, 14 Apr 2006 09:39:42 -0400) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:52869 Archived-At: > From: Ted Zlatanov > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 09:39:42 -0400 > > On 14 Apr 2006, eliz@gnu.org wrote: > > > Dividing the manual into 2 volumes doesn't solve the problem which is > > the main cause for trying to keep the manual's size down. The main > > cause is that a larger manual increases the price of printing the > > books, and thus makes it harder for the FSF to publish new versions. > > (I'm guessing that publishing 2 volumes will increase the price even > > more.) > > By the same reasoning the FSF should not publish a two-part ELisp > reference manual, because half of it could be online and it's cheaper > to publish one book. You are driving the arguments to absurd, which doesn't help to resolve the issue in a reasonable way. ELisp manual is larger than the Emacs user's manual because it needs to cover more material. It is impossible to make the ELisp manual significantly shorter without omitting stuff that Lisp programmers undoubtfully need to know. The price of publishing is not the _only_ consideration. The manual is published first and foremost to cover the important parts of the material; but it doesn't have to cover _everything_. The distinction between _enough_ and _everything_ is where the price comes into consideration. I'm sure you understand all this very well. > I think that's false reasoning. That's the reasoning I got from Richard, and I'll let him restate or revise it (in the latter case, I apologize for possible confusion). > If the price is prohibitive, let the FSF decide *that*, but Emacs > certainly contains enough for two and even three manuals, so we > should not start with the assumption that we have to have a smaller > manual. I didn't start with such an assumption, AFAIK the FSF has _already_ decided that the manuals should not grow too much. We need to find a practical way to include more stuff in the on-line manual, while not enlarging the expenses of the printed version too much. I hope the solution I suggested elsewhere in this thread will be accepted as a reasonable compromise.