Re: use directly section childs with sectiontoc, set USE_NODES 0 for HTML

[jai-bholeki]

> I'm not sure how sensible it is to use @section without a @node or vice
> versa. A @node without a section wouldn't be in the section toc anyway,
> if I understand correctly.

@node makes a separate page.  If your sections are small, by simply
removing @node, you can get the sections together.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, 1 November 2020 12:40, Gavin Smith <gavinsmith0123@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 01:37:04AM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > Why is there no sectiontoc for the @top?
>
> Because the index.html file usually has @contents or @shortcontents
> as well as the Top node.
>
> At https://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/html_node/index.html
> there are actually three tables of contents: @shortcontents, @contents,
> and the menu. This is unnecessary.
>
> > Wouldn'it be better to simply output the section toc of the section, and
> > not the 'current_node' associated section section toc? For some manuals
> > it would make a difference and, in my opinion, an incorrect output, for
> > example when there is a construct like
> > @node mynode
> > @section sec1
> > @section sec2
>
> You are probably right.
>
> > It also seems to me that FORMAT_MENU set to sectiontoc for HTML would be
> > more consistent with USE_NODES set to 0. Otherwise nodes without
> > section would each be in their files, but not appear on section tocs,
> > and their subnodes would be completly unreachable.
>
> I'm not sure how sensible it is to use @section without a @node or vice
> versa. A @node without a section wouldn't be in the section toc anyway,
> if I understand correctly.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion about it, but I feel that the primary
> meaning of @node is to define a named unit of the manual, rather than
> define a cross-reference target. This would mean that each node
> would be in a separate HTML file when output is split, which means
> that USE_NODES should be on.
>
> A node without a section could be part of a manual with an irregular
> structure and it might be reachable by other means.
>
> In that case,
>
> > _default_node_direction() should probably be changed, to give something
> > reasonable when there is no node associated with the section. Actually,
> > it would probably make more sense to use sections for directions if
> > USE_NODES is set to 0.
>
> I haven't investigated what happens currently but this might make sense
> so that the section has "Next" and "Prev" links.