Re: Texinfo -> HTML issues

[Aubrey Jaffer]

 | Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:06:33 +0200
 | From: "Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden>
 | 
 | > From: Aubrey Jaffer <address@hidden>
 | > Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:02:19 -0400 (EDT)
 | > 
 | > Recoding every "-" as _002d is hideous; and totally unnecessary on a
 | > file-system supporting spaces or "-" in filenames.
 | 
 | This actually used to work that way, but was changed in the latest
 | code base to avoid the need to resolve file-name conflicts by putting
 | several nodes on the same file.
 | 
 | > Please make this recoding an option to makeinfo.
 | 
 | I don't think this is a good idea: if a user option can control file
 | names, cross-document references will not be reliable.

Because makeinfo supports both split HTML files and unsplit HTML
files, it already has that problem.

If-this-is-the-final-word-on-file_002dnames_002c-then-I-will-create-my_000a
own-version-of-makeinfo_002e

 | > Certain characters like "/" or "\" are bad for filesystems.  But they
 | > need not be ASCII coded; just convert them to "-".  The only time this
 | > will lose is if someone has nodes named "File I/O" and "File I-O" --
 | > not a common occurence.
 | 
 | The question is: what do we do when we ``lose'' like that?

You give the same advice as was given me when I tried to have two
sections with the same name: "Node names [and the files they map to]
must be unique".

 | It turns out that GNU documentation hits such problems more times
 | than we could ignore.
 | 
 | >  | > * makeinfo HTML pages don't pass validator.w3.org because they lack a
 | >  | >   DTD.  Why isn't one generated?
 | >  | 
 | >  | I was told older versions of some browsers had problems with DTD
 | >  | lines.  Otherwise I would already have added one.
 | > 
 | > How many years will makeinfo continue to produce nonconforming HTML in
 | > support of this rumored browser bug?
 | 
 | It's not rumored, it's real.

Which browser?  Which version?

 | I guess we could drop that in a release or two, it's been a long
 | time.

So I should check back in 2006?