Re: @part command and docbook

[Aharon Robbins]

Hi Karl.

We're still disagreeing, but on a more subtle point.

>     Not really - the translator should handle it.  
>
> I don't agree.  It's the same principle that you already stated: you're
> saying that Texinfo should support <partintro> for Docbook, but we're
> saying that since it's not supported for any other format, that is not,
> in theory, what we'd like.

I think you've not understood what I meant.  I am saying that Texinfo,
*at the markup level*, should not have commands that are of benefit only
to Docbook. E.g., @sidebar.

However, for commands already in the markup language, AND for which
makeinfo is already generating Docbook, my contention is that it should
be generating docbook that is valid.

Were it true that @part was not already in the markup language, and not
already supported by makeinfo, you would have a stronger case to say that
makeinfo should not be supporting <partintro>, or even supporting <part>.
But I think that at this point, where de facto both things are already
there, the translator should be supporting <partintro>.

Let's pretend that for @section, makeinfo was generating incorrect docbook,
and a <sectioninfo> tag was needed, that makeinfo didn't generate. Would
you still argue that makeinfo should not be enhanced to produce the right
output?  That's the exact situation right now with @part.

> In the specific case of <partintro> I'm willing to make an exception
> since it is easy to do (right, Patrice?) and basically harmless given
> the warning for other output formats.  But that doesn't alter the
> principle.
>
>     What if <partintro> goes away
>     in some subsequent docbook revision?  
>
> In my view, that is docbook's (and docbook users') problem.

What if HTML suddenly changes and some tags go away, or are added?
Is that HTML's and HTML users' problems?

> - I am opposed (in principle) to continually tweaking things in Texinfo
> that only benefit Docbook output.  Like the full-on part feature in all
> its glory.

Again - as long as you're talking AT THE MARKUP LEVEL, I agree with you.

But, if makeinfo is not generating valid docbook, that's a bug, exactly the
same as makeinfo not generating valid HTML, or LaTeX (if and when) or
Info that an Info reader can't read.

> That doesn't mean that, in practice, I'm not amenable to the
> occasional exception, like <partintro>.

Which I do appreciate. :-)

Thanks,

Arnold