| Do not know what PDF is, and I cannot read postscript or MS
 | Word without many contortions.  How about a format which is
 | actually READABLE?  Thought that would be too much to ask.

We moved the whole Common Music documentation to HTML last year and
the tree is now undergoing a major overhaul as we put in topical index
markers.  We've had only the best feedback regarding the documentation
and as long as you don't need too many TeX formulas etc, it's a
reasonable format.  Most browsers also produce reasonable printouts.
Not as nice as PDF or ps docs, but similar.


-- 

______________________________________________________________________

Tobias Kunze                       t@kunze.stanford.edu
CCRMA, Stanford University         http://www.stanford.edu/~tkunze

I have a couple of small reservations about having the docs in html format:

1) whenever I get any documentation in html for *anything*, there usually 
if one .html file per page.  First of all, I like the idea of everything 
in one file much much better than a folder full of small tiny files.  The 
other problem is that, at least in the mac world, each file must occupy 
at least one sector.  So, at 20k per file (minimum, on a 1.2 gig 
partition), 50 files make 1MB for documentation alon.

2) if the file is in rtf or word or some other editable format, it's much 
easier to edit it if I want to.  Sometimes I don't really care about 
printing 150 manual pages (which is a typical problem with .pdf files in 
particular); sometimes I want to reformat things slightly (even if it 
weren't only because the brits use A4 paper instead of 8.5 X 11 like 
normal people =) ).

So, in essence: my vote goes all the way to RTF.  

However:  if there is one set of up-to-date documentation available on 
the web in its current state, and mirrored on a number of states, then 
that makes more sense.  First of all, you can just refer to it quickly if 
it's convenient to you, and you can make sure you are up-to-date.

My penny. ( or 0.02$can)

- martin