Re: GDP: LSR and @commonprop

[Graham Percival]

Valentin Villenave wrote:
> 2007/12/4, Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
>
> > My idea now is to avoid all of that discussion by moving *all* of the
> > snippets into LSR.  You can see two examples here:
>
> Hmmm. Last time I checked, it was my idea but not yours (yet) :)

No, I thought of this before you got involved at all.

> However, there's a downside here: LSR is currently *not* meant to be
> ever translated in any way. This would be a major regression if we
> moved many things from the (localized) docs to the (English-only) LSR.

AFAIK, most of the @commonprop aren't translated anyway, so this isn't 
really a regression.

> > "since the snippet already has texinfo code, why not have them
> > automatically inserted directly into the compiled manuals"
>
> The point is: snippets descriptions are currently not reliable. some
> users use HTML tags, others don't, some users use long detailed
> descriptions, while others don't, etc.

That's your problem, not mine.  :)

Remember that I only care about "doc" snippets... and at the moment, I 
only care about "pitches" + "doc" snippets.  I doubt that I'm even going 
to consider the other NR 1 snippets until the end of 2007.

> As a matter of fact, I'm considering writing Sebastiano to see if it
> would be possible (for LSR editors, at least) to input pure Texinfo
> code in the snippets descriptions (I suspect this could easily be
> done, since the backend is already native texinfo). If we ever
> integrated snippets into the documentation, I'd gladly rewrite some
> descriptions using texinfo tags for better docs integration.

Why?  The only tags that you might (usefully) use in snippet 
descriptions are <emph> and <code>.  Those are *already* automatically 
translated into texinfo.

I'll grant that somebody might want to use @ref{}, and that currently 
doesn't work.  I'm not convinced that this would ever really be 
necessary, but if it is, we could work something out.

Cheers,
- Graham