bug-texinfo
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A Roadmap for TexInfo without Info


From: Gavin Smith
Subject: Re: A Roadmap for TexInfo without Info
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:00:35 +0000

On 24 November 2016 at 19:55, Assaf Gordon <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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 ?

As Eli said, the main problem with the above is the printed output,
where a page number has to appear somewhere in the output. You'd get
something like "... turns on extended regular expression, page PP,
mode".

The Info output may be suboptimal, but you are free to ignore it, as I said.

> 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" ?

It would work with "info": the only downside is the insertion of
"*note:", e.g. "... turns on *note extended regular expression::
mode."



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]