[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Last(est) Texinfo version that generates HTML4 output?
|
From: |
Gavin Smith |
|
Subject: |
Re: Last(est) Texinfo version that generates HTML4 output? |
|
Date: |
Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:31:25 +0000 |
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 05:08:09PM +0700, Nutchanon Wetchasit wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Following is going to be an unusual question,
> concerning a very specific usage scenario and requirement
> that intentionally goes against what's so-called
> "best-practices" set by industries-that-must-not-be-named...
>
> (See below "-----" if you would like to skip right to the question)
>
> I came from the DocBook world, and I'm just starting
> a new hardware documentation project as my first writing project
> that uses Texinfo markup format; without having any real background
> in plain TeX and derivatives. The age of machine I am doing this on
> is approaching a decade, and Texinfo toolchain version
> I am currently using is 4.3.
>
> The HTML output it gave was more or less what I expected,
> but some corner cases of its macro interpretation [1]
> and its TeX/PDF output [2] got some bugs that affected my uses;
> so I am considering to install a newer Texinfo toolchain
> *alongside* the existing one.
>
> But I have also noticed that the on-WWW version of GNU software manuals
> have switched to use `<!DOCTYPE html>` header for some time now.
> This could be inferred that the latest version of Texinfo toolchain
> produces HTML-MovingGoalpost [3] either by default, or as the *only*
> SGML-like HTML format offered. This is not what I would like
> to produce my document in however...
>
> I rather prefer my document to be converted into a markup format
> that is properly standardized (i.e. long-standing non-changing
> properly-versioned specification that people from the past, present,
> or future, could realistically write independent viewers for)
> for information longevity reasons. In SGML-style [4] WWW markups,
> this means W3C HTML 4.01 a.k.a. ISO 15445:2000. For that reason,
> I think the latest version of Texinfo might not fit for my needs.
>
> -----
>
> So what I would like to know is: what is the last version of GNU Texinfo
> that its `makeinfo` or `texi2html` utility produces SGML-style HTML output
> which DOES NOT make _any_ use of HTML construct introduced after HTML 4.01?
This is difficult to answer as I am not aware that it does use any HTML
construct that is after HTML 4.01. As you have seen from the NEWS the
DTD declaration was removed in Texinfo 7.0 and was present in Texinfo 6.8.
The only thing that comes to mind is the custom "data-manual" attribute
that is used in links to other HTML manuals. This may have been introduced
in Texinfo 6.7. In Texinfo 7.0 the NO_CUSTOM_HTML_ATTRIBUTE variable
can be used to stop this attribute being output. I believe that custom
data attributes were not present in HTML 4, although would have been
ignored by web browsers in practice.
> And lastly, are there any caveats/gotchas to avoid when having
> more than one version of Texinfo installed on the same system?
> I plan to install it using configure option like `--prefix=/opt/texinfo`.
> (I guess there would be at least one: the installation location
> of `texinfo.tex` and how to reference a correct one when typesetting
> into TeX/PDF)
Not that I'm aware of, although I haven't done it very much.
> [1] I attempted to rig up a new inline quote macro to make Texinfo
> produce "``something''" through TeX but produce "<q>something</q>"
> in HTML (an analog of DocBook's `<quote>` construct);
> but its macro definition translation got some quirk
> which introduced space between the quotes and its content,
> and required a hack which somehow sat okay with TeX-based pipeline
> but blew up in HTML conversion.
Yes macro handing changed completely in Texinfo 5.0 and onwards.
> [2] `@ref{Somenode}` produced "<undefined> [Somenode], page <undefined>"
> in the paper output, no matter that it was `texi2pdf`, `texi2dvi --pdf`,
> or `texi2dvi` followed by `dvi2ps`. (Though that phrase in
> PDF outputs would still link to the target page properly
> when viewed under a PDF viewer software;
> it would not be very helpful in print)
That is unusual although we don't have to be concerned with reports
for such an old Texinfo version.