Re: Small document and sample HTML and DocBook

[Karl Berry]

      \input texinfo

You may not even need the \input texinfo except to process with
texi2dvi.  (Clearly irrelevant for such a tiny file.)  At least I'm
pretty sure it's optional with makeinfo.

    Having said that, it does puzzle me though that using --html
    correctly uses a ".html" extension, but using --docbook uses a
    ".info" extension. Seems like an inconsistent bug/feature -- not
    sure which, heh.

Ok, it's inconsistent, but the best solution is for you to specify the
full filename anyway.

    We're also lacking an explicit node, which I think helps keep things
    simple.

Until the documents become even a tiny bit more complicated, and the
user wants to write sections.  There is no escaping nodes then.  But
sure, for a single-topic file, it should work ok.

      I would like to suggest that this be the [HTML] output instead:
      ...
      * added a proper DOCTYPE, you might want to use "transitional" though

The suggestion has been made before.  We even generated a DOCTYPE at one
time, as I recall.  The experience was that having a DOCTYPE is nothing
but a recipe for trouble with overzealous or buggy browsers, whereas
omitting it has never hurt anything in practice.

  * indented the output, but I wouldn't actually bother to do that in texi2html

Having more readable output wouldn't hurt ...

  * dropped <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css"> as
    this is not needed in practice unless you are using something other
    than "text/css"

Ok.

  * dropped <link title="Top" rel="top" href="#Top"> as this points to a
    non-existent anchor

Ok.

  * added a <h1> element that contains the document title (important change)

How the frontmatter gets handled in HTML has always been rather ad hoc.
Using the @settitle string in the absence of actual node title seems
reasonable.

  * made sure the paragraph is wrapped in a <p> element (important change)

Yeah, the lack of a <p> is a bug. 

Regarding Docbook ...

    The changes I have made are:

Are these changes something for Docbook output in general, or just for
this type of nodeless document?  (Obviously, the fewer special cases,
the better.)  Probably the Docbook output needs your thorough review,
not just more ad hoc changes.

    * remove the final comment

Ok, I guess that final comment in the docbook output is pretty bogus,
looking at it.

    I've covered some of this in my previous emails, but I thought I
    would take the time out to bring it all together into a concrete
    suggestion.

Yes indeed.  Thanks.

    Thanks for the ongoing help everyone, and merry Christmas!

You too :).

karl