Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

CHM (Developers)

posted by Steve Homepage E-mail, US, 30.08.2008, 08:28

> You didn't answer my real question. Is it really a standard, or do some
> browsers simply do this (since they have zlib support internal for http2
> anyway)?
Browsers _should_ be able do it because, a) compression is an http specification (not for Unix only), b) there is a gzip specification. zlib works because it is essentially part of gzip.
http://www.http-compression.com/
http://www.gzip.org/zlib/rfc-gzip.html

> > The slack space problem goes away if raw HTML files are tarred before
> > gzipping (or bzipping).
>
> Yes. IF YOU LEAVE THEM ZIPPED AFTER INSTALL. But then I can't browse
> them. The zip or tarring itself is no problem, the (de)compressor is in
> the installer already. It is kind of slow though with tens of thousands of
> files. (and with 4k clustersize this quickly turns into tens of MBs, while
> it is is a 6MB chm)
I typed too fast and didn't separate threads adequately. Tarring of course is useful in building the download package. A tar file can contain html.gz files just as well as anything else, and then gzipped or bzipped or 7-zipped for transmission. In use, html.gz files are as readable as any other html files.

> > My point is, there are purely mechanical solutions that do not require
> > programming other than revising scripts for packing files and uploading to
> > servers.
>
> I afraid I totally don't get what point you want to make here. Either you
> are reacting out of reflex against .chm (Microsoft paranoia?), or you
> totally lost me.
I was focusing on download package size, because I think reducing download time is more important than disk space after download. Really, what's the big deal about a few MB on today's disks?. And maybe I'm MS-paranoid, so what? :-P

> Sure, I can zip html files. But is that equal to a indexed helpfile
> system? Can I use a mainstream browser to browse such zip as hypertext?
> NO.
>
> Is there a standard helpfile system on *nix ? :no.
>
> > > Also .chm has the ability to embed internal files, which are important for
> > > additional tables for e.g. context sensitive help etc.
>
> > Perhaps .ps or .pdf, with batch files to run Ghostscript or other free
> > reader?
>
> There already is PS/PDF. Beautifully typeset using LaTeX. Even published
> as a book (though in German). If you have a decent way to turn it into an
> helpsystem, let me know.
PDF can have hyperlinks and indexes, right?

> > Yes, browsers are annoying, with so many variations and degrees of
> > compliance with the HTML specs. But I see that as another reason to go
> > with .ps or .pdf, and perhaps supply a reader on the FP servers.
>
> Any external solution is a maintenance nightmare. I want to display an
> help text, not debug why the new version of viewer package X version B
> breaks on OS Y version Z. Specially since I have no interest in package X
> itself in the first place, except displaying the bloody helptext.
> Also using external tools (for the final install, not in crafting the
> binaries of the install) precludes alternate functionality based on the
> helpfiles like displaying help in tooltips.
>
> Free Pascal goes pretty far in eliminating external tools, for maintenance
> and control reasons btw.
Understood. So here is yet another option: Rather than a tightly integrated CHM system, still separate the data files from the viewer. You keep control, need to maintain only your own code, and can issue data or viewer updates in small packages. Also, the user can customize data files (add personal notes, change colors for ergonomic reasons...). It's a tradeoff - some loss of speed (how much really?) and some increase in disk space, but with the gain of greater overall flexibility (my preference).

> E.g. on Windows we have elmininated GNU AS and LD,
> and on the more common (x86,x86_64) ELF targets also AS. Just to avoid the
> horrible maintenance nightmare, and Unix centric thinking that haunts Free
> Software on non Unix targets. Unfortunately, there is no substitute for
> GDB.
I don't see why Unix centric is worse than Windows centric, especially considering that the Linux user base is growing at the expense of Windows.

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22049 Postings in 2034 Threads, 396 registered users, 270 users online (0 registered, 270 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum