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

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

address@hidden writes:
> 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?

[thinking again]

There is no way you can link to both an anchor in a single file
(ie. to singlefile.html#nodename-anchor) and to an anchor in a split
file (ie. to nodename.html#anchor) with the same URL (the one
contained in the external document).

The only solution I see is to assume that all files are always split,
and to dump some additional files for the unsplit .html. So  I propose
this scenario


* a links coming from external documents always looks like
  directory/Nodename.html#anchor

* for the split html this will always work

* for the unsplit html, the file Nodename.html contains the following

  <meta http-equiv="Refresh" content="1;
  URL=index.html#Nodename-anchor">
  <h1>going to nodename-anchor</h1>

  such a stub is generated by makeinfo.

* links within the unsplit .html to look like #Nodename-anchor, so you
  don't have to go through the refresh stub.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden    | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/