Re: CF: proposed docs (longish)

[Klaus Elsbernd <>]

Mark Wedel <> wrote:
> 
>  Might I suggest that HTML might be better than latex/postscript?  Main
> advantages being that it would then be very easy to put docs in a web
> page (which can be very useful, since people connecting may not necesssary
> be on hte same machine/network as the server, and thus can't get the local
> source.)  Also, more people probably have HTML viewing tools than postscript
> tools and/or more people know it (I am one such case - I am somewhat literate
> in HTML, but not in latex/tex).
> 
I would vote against html. I instead suggest {la}tex2html, to convert
the documents to html. I think, getting a printed manual (from TeX/postscript}
output would be more valuable. When I play crossfire, I have the documentation
near the keybord for fast looking. I don't have the time to start a
www-browser, for reading the document. Beside that, I play on an old sun3/260
or sun3/60, which hasn't enough resources to start a WWW-browser, when playing.
Although, there is no netscape available. Only mosaic (I hate those html-pages,
which can only be displayed using netscape).

Ken Woodruff <> wrote:
>I also favor more "self-documentation", in which the game itself contains
>descriptive information.  For example, why not let the user discover
>for themselves that there are two kinds of magic?  We could create 
>a variety of beginner's maps which impart this kind of information.
I would support that kind of information within crossfire. Right now, I
checked the archetypes-file and the program, to examine the behavior of
the power_crystal. If one find that crystal, it would be nice, to
go to a library and ask for the features of that crystal.
For example there should be a librian, which one coud ask a question
by saying hello to him, paying something and getting the information
(possible in a book).
Like
"glowing crystal
results in
a book, where such dokumentation is been written in. I think the altar
Mechanism could be used for that.

MfG
Klaus