Hello, > On Nov 24, 2016, at 03:16, Gavin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 23 November 2016 at 19:33, Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've talked before about getting rid of the info format. >> >> Comments? > >> Its weakness is the “info” file format > > Why is that a weakness? Surely people can ignore the "info" file > format if they want to and focus on the HTML, DocBook and/or printed > (TeX) output? > one minor annoyance that stems from the "info" format: the references (@ref/@xref/@pxref).
When writing a manual and using references, they are rendered differently in each format (info/html/pdf). The texinfo manual even warns: "The @ref command can tempt writers to express themselves in a manner that is suitable for a printed manual but looks awkward in the Info format. Bear in mind that your audience could be using both the printed and the Info format" https://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/texinfo.html#g_t_0040ref But that is exactly what I want! (I am tempted, obviously.) It is the organic way to write effective HTML manuals, and still use them in printed material. The need to accommodate "info" in the references forces the writer to abandon the advantages of the more common HTML/PDF formats. I would like to be able to write texinfo such as: The @option{-E} option turns on @ref{extended regular expression} mode. And have useful generated output in HTML and Online PDF (meaning PDF viewed on screen, where links should work and jump to a different page). For printed material, perhaps an new @ref command should be invented? or wrap every new command with @iftex ? I guess one can always ignore the generated "info" format, and just ensure it looks good on HTML/PDF - but is that a valid approach? e.g. I'm working on improving sed's manual - would it be acceptable to say that sed-4.3's manual doesn't work with "info" ? Just my 2 cents (which might be due to my lack of experience in writing manuals in general and in texinfo specifically) - assaf
