On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 06:51:10PM +0200, Michal Pasternak wrote:
> Ben Collver [Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 09:37:24AM -0700]:
> > 
> > I disagree that it causes massive confusion.  It doesn't seem like a big
> > deal either way, and I think a competant user could deal with either layout.
> 
> Competant users can deal with anything; the only problem is, that they will
> sometimes criticize things they don't like. In this case, you already have a
> few competnt users (and me), criticizing doc/html. Can't they deal with it?
> I doubt so, of course they can. Why do they criticize then? Perhaps because
> doc/html is a bad idea.
> 
> And, I've still haven't seen a single good pro-doc/html argument. Sorry!

I haven't been arguing that doc/html is good, that's why you haven't seen
an argument from me.  I've been trying to figure out what's so bad about
it, and what's so good about just using doc.  Your case is that the
documentation is hard to find.  The "find" command should work pretty well
for that.  I'm not going to complain if doc/html is merged with doc.  But I
haven't heard a compelling reason to do it.

Ben