k...@freefriends.org (Karl Berry) writes:
> That seems to come from makeinfo that treats as a warning missing
> sources!
>
> The idea was that an Info file can very likely still be useful without
> the image. The further idea was that most people would not bother to
> make a .txt version.
John Darrington writes:
> $ texi2dvi --version
> texi2dvi (GNU Texinfo 4.13) 1.135
>
> I do see whitespace where the comma ought to be. Maybe this is
> a problem with my TeX installation. I don't know.
I think it must be a local problem. I see the comma, with the
same texi2dvi version (Debian
a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> What would be the `simplest' way to get code inside @example blocks to
> be coloured? Is there a program that can do pre-formating of @example
> blocks before output?
"source-highlight -f texinfo" looks at first glance to do the
Eli Zaretskii writes:
>> From: Ben Pfaff
>> Cc: k...@freefriends.org, bug-texinfo@gnu.org
>> Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 18:23:25 -0700
>>
>> Then why is there a problem with macro expansions?
>
> I tried to explain that earlier, see
>
> https://list
Eli Zaretskii writes:
>> From: Ben Pfaff
>> Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 10:51:46 -0700
>> Cc: bug-texinfo@gnu.org
>>
>> Why not just have texi2dvi run the Texinfo source through
>> "makeinfo --macro-expand" before running it through TeX?
>
> texi
thout
introducing a need for a new macro language.
(I haven't tried this, though.)
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
Jim Meyering writes:
> If it's only for me, and if there's no hope of it helping to
> convert you to git, I won't bother.
It is confusing to have it there but be out-of-date, so in that
case would you mind disabling it?
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
s.sh pspp" from
the "doc" directory, because doc/pspp.texinfo has @include directives
of the form "@include doc/.texinfo".
This patch fixes the problem, allowing "gendocs.sh -s doc/pspp.texinfo
pspp" to work.
2010-02-13 Ben Pfaff
* util/gendocs.sh: A
years ago when I was tentatively planning to do some work on
it that I never got around to doing.)
2010-02-13 Ben Pfaff
* util/gendocs.sh: Use "($cmd)" in place of "$(cmd)" where
command substitution is not de
I checked out the Git mirror of the Texinfo repository today, to
figure out whether some bugs had been fixed, and I noticed that
it contains no commits newer than 2009-04-21. Since the CVS
repository contains much newer files, I guess the Git repository
is out-of-date. If it is synced manually, t
nl{}:
The braces are required in the invocation (but not the
definition), even when the macro takes no arguments,
consistent with all other Texinfo commands.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
ks have not been formatted
> properly.
For what it's worth, this output looks the way that I would
expect it to look. @example produces typewriter-like output;
typewriters don't have fancy double-quotes.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
Noah Slater writes:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 06:47:49PM +, Noah Slater wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 09:39:38AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> > It sends the same Accept header (Iceweasel 2.0.0.11), although I think you
>> > must have reconfigured the server in th
Noah Slater writes:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:41:38PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html[...]
>
> My, this is strange. Your Firefox seems to prefer XML over HTML.
>
>> I don't think I've con
Noah Slater writes:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 08:59:21PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> Noah Slater writes:
>>
>> > Take a look at the following page:
>> >
>> > http://tumbolia.org/
>>
>> Is this supposed to be a conventional webpage? On Fi
Noah Slater writes:
> Take a look at the following page:
>
> http://tumbolia.org/
Is this supposed to be a conventional webpage? On Firefox
2.0.0.1 that I have on my laptop here, it shows up as "This XML
file does not appear to have any style information associated
with it. The document tree
By mistake, I typed the command "makeinfo texinfo.tex" in
Texinfo's doc directory and was surprised to get a segfault. I
then deleted lines and characters until I reproduced the segfault
with a file that contains the following single line:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem is an attempt to fr
cription" box type your email address in the
entry field and click on Send. You can select "Advanced mode"
from the dropdown box before clicking on Send if you want to
choose some more options.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 29 Apr 2002, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > In that case, why not use an escape mechanism? For instance,
> > disallowed characters could be translated into a pair of hex
> > digits representing the character's ASCII va
"Eli Zaretskii" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, my real problem is not with `+' per se, but with what will
> follow. If `+' is allowed, people will want to have other characters
> as well. Before long we will have `:', `|', `<', etc. Where do we
> stop, and how do we explain that other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes:
> As for the original question, does + in a filename allowed in DOS? If it
> doesn't, clearly we cannot allow it. If it does, I think we may as well.
If + is not allowed under DOS, a reasonable alternative could be
to change them to `-'s or `_'s in normal
Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > Links to anchors won't necessarily redirect to the right place,
> > will they? cannot be specialized based on a
> > #fragment name.
>
> Yes, but a name of an an
Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 28 Apr 2002, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > GNU libavl's manual has some anchor names that differ just in one
> > character, "-" in one of them, "+" in the other. For the purpose
> > of conv
GNU libavl's manual has some anchor names that differ just in one
character, "-" in one of them, "+" in the other. For the purpose
of converting these to HTML with makeinfo, it would be nice if
"+" were considered acceptable in .html file names. RFC 2396
says that "+" is okay in URI path compone
24 matches
Mail list logo
