> On Jan 6, 2024, at 23:04, Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2024 13:49:53 +0000
>> From: Jean-Christophe Helary <jean.christophe.hel...@traductaire-libre.org>
>> Cc: stefankan...@gmail.com, vincent....@hotmail.fr, emacs-de...@gnu.org,
>> r...@gnu.org, help-texinfo@gnu.org
>>
>> Thinking out loud here, but @node currently requires the node-name
>> argument and has next/preious/up optional argument. It seems to me that
>> most of the issues would be fixed by adding a fifth argument that acts
>> like the cross-references' second argument (online-label). That way,
>> node-name can stay as it is and act as the pointer but is displayed as
>> "online-label", which is the translated part.
>
> Maybe this will be a solution, I don't know. (But note that the
> next/preious/up arguments are basically obsolete and almost never used
> nowadays.)
Sure, but adding a 4th argument would be compatible with the current
state of affairs.
>> Same for the cross-references, if we generalize the use of 2 or 3
>> arguments.
>
> Cross-references already support 5 arguments.
I know. That's why I'm saying generalize their use.
> I think we'd need something more complex there. One possibility could
> be some kind of "translation table" inside an Info file, which maps
> English node names to translated names.
Interesting. Is such a "translation" file already used in parts of
Emacs (obviously not in relation to natural language translations)?
It seems to me that using things/concepts that already exist keeps the
internal logic of the tool, while adding new processes adds to the
complexity of things. But there are more things that I do not
understand in Emacs/TexInfo than things I do, so I'll leave this
consideration at that.
