svn commit: r358704 - head/Mk

[Adam Weinberger]

On 21 Jun, 2014, at 16:46, Stephen Hurd <shurd at sasktel.net> wrote:
> While it supports a great deal of output formats, it supports a very
> small number of input formats.  Of course, "PS" isn't universally
> understood anymore, some maybe "PostScript and PDF handing via
> Ghostscript" would be better... or "Use Ghostscript for PDF and Postscript”.

I really like “PostScript and PDF handling via Ghostscript.” It’s clear, clean, and more-or-less accurate... I wouldn’t suspect there are too many ports that rely on GS for its bitmap rasterization. (Right?)

> I'm not even sure that Ghostscript needs to be repeated in the
> description since the option name is shown.  Possibly even "for
> PostScript and PDF rasterization" would be best.
> 
> Quite often the word following the option name on the line is the option
> name with different casing.

I agree with everything you just said, except I think that consistency is vitally important for clarity so GHOSTSCRIPT should match the way other descriptions are formatted.

Ideally though, descriptions should say what the OPTION will accomplish, as you and Eitan have pointed out. “PS and PDF rasterization” tells me what enabling it will accomplish, and I can be confident that I can deselect it if I don’t want PS and PDF rasterization support. And while we’re at it, there should be a pop-up box that tells me which dependencies will be added by selecting this OPTION.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
adamw at adamw.org
http://www.adamw.org