On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 07:53:08AM -0800, Raymond Toy wrote:
> > I think links for @anchor is important since it's something the author had
> > to say explicitly, so having that available in html seems appropriate.
> > Perhaps I'll change my mind after I see what you've done so far.
> Having seen these new links, I'm not sure what to do about anchors. In
> maxima's manual, the anchors often point to the first entry of a deffoo.
> So now there would be two links to the same place, with different ids. In
> this case, it's not terrible. But if there's an @ref to some @anchor, to
> get the link you'd have to find any @ref pointing the anchor to get the
> link. That's not so convenient.
For @def* and @*table there is a clear "heading" which the link can
be attached to. In contrast, @anchors (like index entries) could be
anywhere. I don't think it would always look good to have a copiable
anchor link (what do you call these things? - "permalink" seems to be
promising too much) and there may not be a good place to put them.
As with index entries, I feel that @anchors should be invisible at
the target (although it would be interesting to see any examples from
documents where having a copiable link for an @anchor would work well).
This link defines what a "render quantum" is, and clicking on it also brings up a list of where this term is referenced and also provides a link to be copied. I think this is useful.
However, I'm not saying this needs to be implemented in texinfo.
Texinfo's own manual mainly uses @anchor for renamed nodes so that
old links still work. Copiable links here would not be useful.
I think maxima's manual is essentially the same. All the anchors are basically placed just before some deffoo.