Re: using manual_html as output directory for HTML

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 11:36:39AM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 9:14 AM Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I think that it is not a good thing to have the base manual name, or the
> > base manual name with .html prepended as default directory for html
> > output, for three reasons:
> > * I think that a directory with the manual name should be reserved for
> >   other purposes, for example keeping in it include texinfo files,
> >   images, init files, CSS files, translations...
> > * it does not generalize well to other output formats.
> >
> > I propose instead to prepend _html to the base manual name, and use
> > similar conventions for other (future) split formats.
> 
> (I think you mean postpend or suffix with _html, rather than prepend,
> e.g. BASE_html not _htmlBASE.)

Indeed, postpend...

> Using _html would be fine in my opinion for output.

Ok.

> > The HTML Xref specification would be modified accordingly.
> 
> The URL for a manual is something different. Adding "_html" to the
> name of the manual would make the URL worse. If the directory is
> output with _html then the files should still be uploaded to the web
> server in a directory named after the manual.

I do not get it.  My point was just that the HTML Xref could need to be
updated to match with the change.  Do you think that the manuals in the
web should not have the _html prepended even if this is the default for
a manual split?

> I believe it is the gendocs.sh script from Gnulib that is used by many
> GNU packages for building web documentation; we should check this
> still works with any changes.

Indeed.  Changes in automake are also probably needed.

-- 
Pat