[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: rethinking @def*
From: |
pertusus |
Subject: |
Re: rethinking @def* |
Date: |
Wed, 27 Jul 2022 10:25:56 +0200 |
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 09:32:15PM +0000, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > I can't see why having different output makes texinfo harder to use.
> > Having all output identical does not seem to me to be a goal of
> > Texinfo formatting. To me an important element of the Texinfo
> > philosophy is that the Texinfo code describes the intent of the
> > document, not the formatting. As long as the formatting convey this
> > intent, the details of the formatting are not relevant and
> > differences among outputs are not an issue.
>
> I disagree. Just imagine that warnings in TeX are shown in red, and
> recommendations are typeset in green. In HTML, warnings are shown in
> green, and recommendations in red. Would you consider this as 'not
> relevant'? For me, such a difference would be unacceptable – warnings
> would have to be typeset in red.
>
> I believe there are certain formatting expectations that must not be
> violated, else documentation is very hard to read.
I completly agree with your example, and we do try to have consistency
among output formats. But we need to draw a line somewhere, and, for
example, the precise font used to emphasize, for example, could be
different.
Regarding the formatting of @def* lines, now that I have realized to
what extent they are different from TeX, and in particular not in
typewriter enough, there probably will be changes.
--
Pat
- Re: rethinking @def*, (continued)
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/07/29
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/07/26
- Re: rethinking @def*, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/07/26
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/07/26
- Re: rethinking @def*, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/07/26
Re: rethinking @def*, pertusus, 2022/07/26
Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/07/26