On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 01:45:10PM +0200, Claus Andersen wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, David Maxwell wrote:

> Wouldn't a sparse table be better to give an overview than a sparse
> list? 

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean there.

> 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.

It depends on the target audience. For the technical crowd, the "what can be
done" is good to explain, but for the novice, "what works" is good to have
documented also.

No, it'll never have every app that exists, but if it covers the most
highly demanded ones it'll perform its task.

> > 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 did think it was a big image - I happened to right click on a part that
was the graphic, but I didn't try viewing it. :-(

So forget my maintainence comment, the remaining question is the
sparseness one. 

As I see it, putting all the ports in a table means you have to look at
things you don't care about, and puts more space between the things you
are looking for.

-- 
David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net -->
(About an Amiga rendering landscapes) It's not thinking, it's being artistic!
					      - Jamie Woods