On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, David Maxwell wrote:

> Claus Andersen wrote:
> > I would definitely prefer tables. I have tossed up an example 
> > which partly uses an image for easier reading. 
> 
> I like the images, but the tables are all going to be quite
> sparse. Many applications are only available for one arch, and
> many archs don't have any emulations (or will have a unique one).

Wouldn't a sparse table be better to give an overview than a sparse
list? My hope was that this page was intended to give people an idea of
what NetBSD is able to do rather that an exact list (which never will be
100% up to date anyway). The compat feature changes often between version
so I think an overview saying: "This can be done" would be better and
easier to maintain as people will delve deeper into the man pages for the
exact answers.

> Also, the images are a lot more work to maintain. Anything which
> discourages updating the pages 'on a whim' is a bad thing...

I think the tables should be easy to update as it is pure HTML except for
the horizontal header which would be fairly static. I would be happy to do
the headers (then I would at least do something on www@).
I'm not sure wether you discarded the idea thinking that it was just one
image or you actually looked at the "code"? If the latter I stand down.

> > I have not changed the text in any way but we should perhaps explain that
> > Linux x86 binaries only work on the x86 architecture and so forth.
> 
> That's already mentioned in the last paragraph of 'How does it work'
> and the first one of 'Any other considerations?'

Errrmmm yes. Errrmmm. How can I explain this? Hmmm - Perhaps I should take
my medicine before wrting such nonsense :-) I haven't got a clue how I
could miss that?!?! I do (now) agree that he text is perfectly clear.

> > My suggestion: http://www.ntwork.dk/compat.html
> 
> I am going to steal the filename though ;-)

I am afraid that would infringe my rights as I consider it as my IP :-P

Kind Regards,
Claus Andersen