Re: Add support for generating HTML docs a` la PDF, etc.

[Bruce Korb]

Richard Dawe wrote:

> > The problem, with html, is that nobody agree about what the
> > ouput should be.  I'd say that if we support html, we should
> > use the default makeinfo output (which is to split on nodes),
> > and let the user say `AM_MAKEINFOFLAGS = --no-split' when wanted.
> > This is what we do for info files already.
> 
> OK. But then it gets hard to know which files to remove. Removing *.html seems
> a bit dangerous to me. Perhaps some support script could produce a list of
> nodes, so that we know remove the right HTML files. What should it be called?
> texinodes?

Perhaps dump all the .texi-derived files into a subdirectory?
WRT what program and options to use, you'll need two substitution
variables.  The texi2html output is just so much better than
the makeinfo version that there must be a way to say, "use that."

> >  Richard> For consistency, if an html_TEXINFOS thing (primary?)
> >  Richard> is added, it seems that there should be pdf_TEXINFOS,
> >  Richard> etc. too.
> >
> > eww...
> 
> 8)

Time to rethink the mechanism.  :-)