[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: a few itching msgids

From: Patrice Dumas
Subject: Re: a few itching msgids
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 21:26:47 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10)

On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 09:38:04PM +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> Hi,
> Some of the new message strings in Texinfo make me wonder
> about what precisley is being meant.
> Common.pm contains:
> msgid "Error on closing renamed nodes file %s: %s"
> HTML.pm contains:
> msgid "Error on closing renamed node file %s: %s"
> Probably the latter should be the same as the first?

They correspond to different cases, and should be different, in fact
they are certainly not different enough.  In Common.pm, the error
message is for an error when closing the files specifying renamed 
nodes, as explained in the node 'HTML Xref Link Preservation'.
(As a side note, since the file is opened read-only, this error should
rarely happen in real life.)  This message is certainly badly choosen,
should better be along

  "Error on closing renamed cross references description file %s: %s"

In HTML.pm the error message is output if closing a redirection
file for a renamed node fails.  This error message may happen in real
life, as the file is written to.  Maybe the following would be better:

  "Error on closing renamed node redirection file %s: %s"

> msgid "Node `%s' that is to be renamed exists"
> Something to be renamed should exist, no?
> Is not a phrase intended like:
> "New name for node %s already exists"?

No, it is not that it is more or less the reverse.  This error message
is for the case of a node name that the user wanted to associate to a
node in the document, but this node name also exists in the document.

So it should better be like
  "Old name for %s is a node of the document"

> msgid "Node to be renamed as, `%s' not found"
> Maybe the comma should not be there?

Indeed, I thought it was more correct with a comma...

> msgid "@%s `%s' output more than once"
> What does this want to say?  That '@%s %s' has been output
> more than once?  Or does @%s say that '%s' has been output
> several times?

It is a very rare case, I am not aware of another case than @anchor in
@copying/@end copying.  If @insertcopying is used more than once, this
leads to the anchor being processed more than once too.  For example

@anchor{License 1}
License 1...

@anchor{License 2}
License 2...
@end copying

The terms of copying are


The license 1 @ref{License 1} covers code.


To contribute to the code, you should use license 1 for code and 
license 2 for manual:


> msgid "@node precedes @%s, but part are not associated with nodes"
> Part are?

It is a sectioning command

5.11 @part: Groups of Chapters
The final sectioning command is @part, to mark a part of a manual, that is, a 
group of
chapters or (rarely) appendices. This behaves quite differently from the other 
commands, to fit with the way such "parts" are conventionally used in books.

> msgid "Unknown from index `%s' in @%s"
> msgid "Unknown to index name `%s' in @%s"
> Unknown what?

What is unknown is the 'from index' or 'to index'.  For example, in 
@synindex indf indt

indf may be the "Unknown from index `indf' in @synindex"
indt may be the "Unknown to index name `indt' in @synindex"

> msgid "tex4ht output %s missing"
> msgid "tex4ht output got %d for %d items entered"
> msgid "tex4ht output no text for @%s %s"
> Is "output" here a verb or a noun?  Got %d what?

The first if for the case of the output file that should have be
produced by the tex4ht processor is not there.  So it should 
certainly better be along

"tex4ht output file %s is missing"

The second is output in case there was a different number of TeX
fragments processed (from @math or @tex / @end tex) than fragments
retrieved from the file produced by the tex4ht processor.  So maybe

"tex4ht processing produced %d items in HTML for %d items found in the document"

The last happens when a @math or @tex / @end tex is encountered in the
document tree, but there is no corresponding fragment retrieved in the
file produced by the tex4ht processor.  Maybe would be better along

"tex4ht no processed HTML item found for address@hidden %s"


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]