Re: Fwd: [PATCH] different approach to --split html

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:35:19 +0100
> 
> address@hidden writes:
> > 
> > ??? How will this work for references that point to other documents?  If 
> 
> you could take the mswordview / latex2html approach. Processing a
> document called foo will always resulting html files in a subdirectory
> called foo/ .

That's exactly what I was suggesting originally: the HTML files of a
certain manual will live in a special subdirectory whose name is the
name set by @setfilename (maybe sans any extensions).

> > > Would it be ok to assume that the other html documents
> > > are split if we're split and vice versa?
> > 
> > I don't think this is a valid assumption, in general.  Imagine a system 
> > where some of the HTML files where produced by an old version of makeinfo 
> > which didn't support splitting ;-)
> 
> I think that backward compatibility would make it too hard on us

That's true, but IMHO backward compatibility is very important.  It is
not nice to tell people to upgrade every file and program on their
disk just because we found a cool new way of doing things.

> (but you're only joking, right?)

Actually, I wasn't joking.  At least not about the possibility of a
system where there are old unsplit HTML files.

> OTOH, I can imagine split and non-split
> files mixed together. This can be solved by always putting a non-split
> .html into index.html in a subdirectory.

I'm not sure I understand what are you suggesting, exactly.  Could you
please elaborate?  What would a link to another HTML file look like,
so that it works with both split and unsplit files?