Re: Ideas about default HTML output?

[Patrice Dumas]

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 07:51:00PM -0500, Karl Berry wrote:
> 
> In the alternative, with texi2html's graphics, I'd find it more
> comprehensible if they were in the order
> << < Up > >>.

Indeed, I implemented it.

There is also a variable that determines if headers in table (texi2html)
are used or simple headers (like makeinfo). It is only set if called as 
texi2html.

> The link to Sec_About (and that whole section) does not appeal to me.
> The output should be self-explanatory.

It is not output when simple headers are output.

> Noticed in passing: I think texi2html's between-node rules are too big
> -- just a simple <hr> seems enough?

I kept a big rule for the top element, and between the elements and 
the misc elements (footnotes, contents...) when simple headers are not used.

> I've never been too fond of the texi2html footer.  It's very often
> irrelevant who generated the document and the generation date can be
> misleading (the sources might be ancient).  That information is not
> (visibly) written in any other output format.  Of course it's fine/good
> to have it all in comments in the source.

It is now controlled by a variable that is set only when called as
texi2html. I don't like this advertizing footer either, but it is very 
usefull to find out manuals generated by texi2html.

>     do you like the letters in indices, 
> 
> Yes.  I like texi2html's index formatting better.  Except there should
> be more space between the index term and the "page" reference -- looks
> like it's just a single space in the xmaxima manual.

I added an invisible unbreakable space.

> Noticed in passing: I do not like the underlining of the defun words
> like "Function".  I'm not sure what should be done, bold maybe, but
> underlining has such a strong association with links on the web.

I removed the underlining, and I italicized the type, such that both
are not in the same 'font'.

--
Pat