Re: It's time for a change

[Gavin Smith]

On 18 July 2015 at 15:28, Arthur Schwarz <address@hidden> wrote:
> The Texinfo declaration of intent is to support a wide range of monitors and
> operating systems, and to have a single source document to feed many other
> type documents. These goals have been achieved, and have been remarkably
> done.

Also print and possibly sound.

> However, I remember when documents where produced in fixed font only, and
> were printed on paper for dissemination; first on 132 column paper on huge
> printers, then on 80 column paper on small, commercial use, printers. This
> age began with TECO and Runoff and their ilk, with a, at the time, small
> recognition of TeX and Metafont. Texinfo comes from that age.

>From the beginning Texinfo could be processed as TeX, which doesn't
require fixed-width fonts.

> We now have printers much more capable than that of 30+ years ago, and we
> have ways of distributing information which were almost unknown then. We
> have monitors capable of doing 'colorful' things which where almost unknown
> then. But Texinfo is a product of 'then'.
>
> I think that the Texinfo toolset and language should be rethought, if for
> nothing else then to see if the mental exercise is rewarding. What is sorely
> needed is a toolset for creation and a language suited for a more nuanced
> data presentation.

"Rethought." Who's doing the rethinking - you or someone else? If it's
you, well done. I hope you will be able to make good suggestions.

> Let me hazard that if Texinfo was replaced by HTML then most, if not all,
> the Texinfo goals would be satisfied, to wit, a means to make the documents
> widely available and many computers and operating systems. a formalized
> language, and tools to convert to other presentation formats, including
> Texinfo I would mention. Plus HTML can produce a much, much more attractive
> display.

But this is the Texinfo mailing list. What's the point of telling
people here to use HTML instead of Texinfo? This says nothing about
the relative merits of each as a source format. If someone wants to
use HTML as a source for a printed document, and they succeed in doing
so, well done to them.

Why do you say that HTML can produce a more attractive display? What
could be done with HTML that can't already be done with Texinfo's
existing HTML output?

> What then are the (my) minimum requirements?
> 1: An editor able to create, view, and modify documents.

Texinfo can be edited with a text editor. I'm personally happy doing
this. Some people might like to use a more WYSIWIG editing program.
Somebody would have to develop such a thing.

> I might add (now lauding HTML) that HTML has all these things, and HTML is a
> widely accepted format with editors and convertors.

If anyone wants to write better or more editors or converters for
Texinfo, that would be a great thing, but just saying that doesn't
make it happen.

> The challenge is to think that rethinking should be done, and to do
> it. I think it is and would be a mistake not to spend time now looking
> towards the future.

As I said, it's easy to say that other people should rethink. It's a
generality that may sound profound, but which is actually useless.