I don't mean to minimize he needs of CLI
users, and not sure it matters too much for the EPL document, but many
of those mentioned, do have links, bold text, a little layout, etc. Some
of them are displayed "from the IDE", where plain text would
look, well, a little plain.
Plus, in general, "raw text"
is typically harder to translate (since "encoding" or "charset")
is not encoded "in the file" like it is in HTML), plus, I have
heard, it is sometimes harder to make "text files" nicely "accessible"
(such as for screen readers) where HTML which has such concepts built in
(mostly). So ... yes, worth a bug report and pros and cons detailed and
perhaps alternatives thought of.
HTML forever! :) (can you tell my biases?
Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx>
Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
the EPL\(Eclipse Public License\)" <epl-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx>
03/24/2015 06:00 PM
well, i tend to care about things a little differently
so don't take
my opinion as sacrosanct...but it is jarring to crack open something
like the jetty-distribution, or really any jar file we produce and
find html files
> less foo.txt
that is a lot simpler then either reading in between the html tags or
using a browser to read files on the disk...to me :)
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Mike Milinkovich
> On 24/03/2015 5:31 PM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>> plain txt would be very welcome for pretty much everything! about.txt,
>> notice.txt, etc etc:)
> Huh. I had no idea this was an issue. Goes to show what I know. Please
> a bug and assign it to me.
> Mike Milinkovich
> +1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
epl-discuss mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epl-discuss