[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Add support for generating HTML docs a` la PDF, etc.

From: Richard Dawe
Subject: Re: Add support for generating HTML docs a` la PDF, etc.
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:57:16 +0000


[ I've added address@hidden, since this is more than a discussion about the
patch now. Maybe I should have included it in the original recipient list. ]

Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> >>> "Richard" == Richard Dawe <address@hidden> writes:
>  Richard> Hello.
>  Richard> Below is a patch that adds HTML documentation
>  Richard> generation in a similar way to PDF, PostScript, etc. -
>  Richard> by adding 'html' targets for texinfo sources from
>  Richard> info_TEXINFOS.
> The problem, with html, is that nobody agree about what the
> ouput should be.  I'd say that if we support html, we should
> use the default makeinfo output (which is to split on nodes),
> and let the user say `AM_MAKEINFOFLAGS = --no-split' when wanted.
> This is what we do for info files already.

OK. But then it gets hard to know which files to remove. Removing *.html seems
a bit dangerous to me. Perhaps some support script could produce a list of
nodes, so that we know remove the right HTML files. What should it be called?

> Still some people prefer using texi2dvi, and some also want to
> distribute html files.  It seems hard to satisfy these.

Do you mean texi2html, rather than texi2dvi?

I think using makeinfo should be the default. Then how about supporting an
option in AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS, to use texi2html instead: html-texi2html?

Clearly texinodes (or whatever it's called) would need two modes, to cope with
different output filenames: makeinfo- and texi2html-modes.

>  Richard> I know this is different to the way proposed in
>  Richard> TODO. I read TODO afterwards. ;)
> Let's ignore TODO.  I don't think we need html_TEXINFOS.  Not until
> the GNU Coding Standards introduce a $(htmldir) variable.
> Right now we only install info files in $(infodir).  Other
> ps/pdf(/html) targets are there only for convenience.
>  Richard> For consistency, if an html_TEXINFOS thing (primary?)
>  Richard> is added, it seems that there should be pdf_TEXINFOS,
>  Richard> etc. too.
> eww...

>  Richard> This patch also does not update the example given
>  Richard> about html_DATA in the automake.texi manual.  So this
>  Richard> patch isn't complete - it's more a conversation
>  Richard> starter. ;)
> For a starter the patch looks very great to me!  I think it is
> worth a NEWS entry.   Also the test case should better make sure
> files are cleaned up properly (I'd do this with `$MAKE distcheck'),
> with or without --no-split (if we are going to support this).

OK. I think we should support --no-split. I was trying to make an "easy"
starter patch.

Thanks, bye, Rich =]

Richard Dawe [ ]

reply via email to

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