[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: broken links for "next section in reading order"
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: broken links for "next section in reading order" |
Date: |
Sat, 29 May 2010 13:20:40 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 05:05:08PM +0100, James Lowe wrote:
> Graham,
>
> Graham Percival wrote:
>> Anyway, what does the texinfo manual say about @-commands in node
>> names? Could you look this up, James?
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/texinfo.html#Node-Line-Requirements
>
> I think this bit is what you are after:
>
> --snip--
>
> @-commands in node names are not allowed. This includes punctuation
> characters that are escaped with a address@hidden, such as @ and {, and
> accent
> commands such as ‘@'’.
Yeah, that looks familiar.
Now, we _know_ that the texinfo manual isn't always accurate, just
like we know that our own manuals aren't always accurate. But in
this case, I don't think there's any harm in following it. Users
never see the @node names; they only see the @section names, which
_do_ allow @commands.
James, could you remove any @ symbols in @node names? Doing
something like
grep "@node.*@" Documentation/* -r
would probably be useful.
- this is a very low-priority request
- please check that the docs compile after changing stuff. This
is precisely the kind of change that's likely to bork stuff.
- you might prefer to work manual-by-manual (i.e. cd
Documentation/learning/ ; grep "@node.*@" * ; fix stuff; check
it; send me patch for the learning dir)
- hmm... let's say **don't** modify any of the translations.
Cheers,
- Graham
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", (continued)
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", James Lowe, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Mark Polesky, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/23
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Trevor Daniels, 2010/05/24
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Mark Polesky, 2010/05/24
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/24
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", James Lowe, 2010/05/26
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order",
Graham Percival <=
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", James Lowe, 2010/05/31