On 9 February 2016 at 02:52, Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 02/08/2016 12:23 PM, Gavin Smith wrote: >> >> There is probably no great barrier to this question, other than taking >> care of this last 5%. I haven't said what the "HTML-Info" question is, >> because defining the question is part of the problem. It seems easy >> enough, but talk is cheap, and anyone one who comes forward with an >> answer will need to define the question thoroughly themselves. > > > I don't really get into this in my previous response, but I agree. > The fundamental long-term goal IMO is stop optimizing GNU documentation tool > for the least capable plain-text terminals, and (relatedly) replacing > the info format by html as the preferred format for GNU documentation. >
I suggest that anyone who wants to work on this checks how well Automake supports building and installation of HTML manuals. I seem to remember that using e.g. a html_TEXINFOS Automake variable doesn't work very well. Other problems come to mind: * Intermanual links: locally installed manuals should be preferred. * Search path for manuals. * How the locally installed HTML pages are accessed, in a standard web browser or a special documentation viewer that happens to use HTML as its format. These issues, and several others, would need to be taken care of. You can probably think of some I haven't mentioned. > (1) Improvements to the html generated by makeinfo. > A secondary benefit of doing so is may allow us to > get rid of the --xml output format. (I'd like to get > to the point where html output contains all the information > currently available only in xml or docbook output formats.) I don't care that much about the XML output format, but it exists, may be occasionally useful, and isn't getting in the way much of the other code.
