From:	Christopher Croughton <crough45 AT amc DOT de>
Message-Id:	<97Jul7.100424gmt+0100.16645@internet01.amc.de>
Subject:	Re: DJGPP is in WAY too many piece
To:	galbiati AT cse DOT ogi DOT edu (Phil Galbiati)
Date:	Mon, 7 Jul 1997 09:08:35 +0100
Cc:	crough45 AT amc DOT de, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.95.970707003807.9339F-100000@blue.cse.ogi.edu> from "Phil Galbiati" at Jul 7, 97 08:50:19 am
Mime-Version:	1.0

Phil Galbiati wrote:

> If you want to use an editor to read it, please feel free.  The only
> difference between the flat text readme and the HTML readme would be a few
> lines which contain HTML tags, so frankly, I see absolutely no reason to
> keep two formats.  Besides, if a newbie sees one file called "readme", he
> is more likely to read it than if he sees two.

Well, if it's only a matter of putting a <pre> tag round it why bother?
All the browsers I've seen will read a .TXT file as plain text anyway
(but admittedly they don't know what to do about a .1ST file, so the
name README.TXT would seem better).

If I see an HTML file then I will tend to ignore it, because I don't
like trying to wade through masses of HTML tags.  I'm unlikely to bother
to download it even.

> Ummmmm..... you want to put the unzipping instructions inside the zip 
> files?????

Not only, as well.  And the reason I think there should be an INSTALL.TXT
file is the one previously posted, most people will ignore README files
because most of them are either about the software (what it does) or
contain usage instructions for after it's been installed (last-minute
corrections to manuals etc.)

> If the second posting of the mini-FAQ prevents only one newbie post per
> week, then it is probably a break-even proposition in terms of bandwidth,
> and a significant savings in terms of labor.

Agreed.

Chris C

- Raw text -