> It does sound reasonable, provided that you not only look into printing, but actually make it available (sans classes stuff sounds fine).

Good. Thanks.

> I thought that one of the advantages of HTML was that one could go back/forth between "WEB" or "regular" rather easily.

It may be. I haven't really looked into it yet. Rick's tool actually stores all of the help in a DBF, then generates HTML files and uses Microsoft Help Workshop to create a help project and compile it. I'm pretty sure there will be a way to stuff it all into Word, I just haven't looked into it yet.

> I also hope that you indicate in some way those methods which have code and those which are empty (for user usage) as well as the "default" behaviour of each.

It's done within each topic. It probably would be cool to actually denote them in some other way as well. OTOH, except in a few legacy methods, there are standard naming conventions for these kinds of methods that make them pretty easy to recognize.