Re: Re: "waldschrotts guide to nifty references" - manual page draft, version 0.9b

On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:05:55AM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: > At 00:56 21/08/2000, eschmid+sic@s.netic.de wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:16:55AM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > At 23:46 20/08/2000, eschmid+sic@s.netic.de wrote: > >What the current manual needs is a complete function reference and a good > >language reference for PHP 4. > > I don't understand you really. You say that if the manual remains a > reference manual it's a bad idea, and then you say it needs to be... a > reference manual. I mean the manual have to be a complete reference manual with some more or less language reference sections in it. A manual which will people not only read online. If it is as nearly so good as books they will buy a manual in a printed form. Every child needs now a Harry Potter, and every PHP newbie needs a PHP manual. Do you understand me now? > >What I have in mind is to sell the manual as a book on demand. We have > >here many printing companies who feeds a machine with a PostScript file > >and at the end there comes out a book which will send to the buyer. > > How is that related? Again, as the manual is GPL'd, anybody can sell it > with or without our consent (we basically gave our consent already). We > can try to create our own hardcopies. I still don't see how it's related > to what this manual should or should not be. Are you interested with > competing with other books? Why? The GPL isn't here very helpfull. If a program or document is altert, it doesn't belong to the GPL. And so the rest should be very clear. I haven't found my name in this book. But that is another story. -Egon PS: We have a new German book in preparation. Nothing is stolen from the manual. Someone on this list wants to write a foreword? -- http://www.linuxtag.de/ http://php.net/books.php http://www.concert-band.de/