Re: Texinfo 7.0 changed the name of HTML output directory

[Patrice Dumas]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 05:18:25PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > If the common case is to rename "eglot_html" to "eglot", then why is
> > the default "eglot_html"?  In my book, defaults should be identical to
> > what happens in common cases, otherwise we force everyone and their
> > dog to customize texi2any.  No?
> 
> I assume that the "_html" suffix marks the output directory as containing
> HTML so is useful to have when the HTML output appears among other files
> in a directory on someone's computer.

Also it leaves out the eglot/ directory that can be used for something
else than a specific format output.

> >  IOW, I'd expect the version of
> > htmlxref.cnf distributed by Texinfo to be mostly empty, with the
> > possible exception of G and GS variables, and possibly other such
> > variables that document the site of each manual, like BINUTILS, EMACS,
> > etc. -- so that cross-manual references that point to another project
> > could be correct.  But the "manual information" lines should not be
> > present in this file for most if not all manuals, AFAUI, if the
> > defaults are reasonable.
> 
> It is only two links, "mono" and "node" for most manuals and we have
> to say which webpage the manuals are found on.  I doubt there is
> much benefit to trying to abbreviate the htmlxref.cnf format any, if
> I understand what you said correctly.

If I understand correctly, it would also require defining collections of
manuals somewhere so the gain would not be that important.

> Changing the way texi2any outputs such links seems easy to implement.
> In Texinfo 6.8, in HTML.pm:_external_node_href, the following lines
> gave the default output:

...

> We might need to go back to the way it was done before and not append
> this suffix.  I don't know if it is worth adding a customization variable
> for this.

I do not think that this is the way to go.  If we go back on something,
I think that it would better be the HTML Xref specification, and not the
output directory.  I think that using consistently the output format
name in the output directory is much better than what was done before.

-- 
Pat