Re: Texinfo 7.0 changed the name of HTML output directory

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 06:54:03PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > I think that, for now, we should have all the manuals in htmlxref.cnf
> > not only GNU manuals.
> 
> This might be too much work for you, for no good reason.  There are
> gazillions of manuals out there, and having all of them in that file,
> let alone keeping it up to date, is not necessarily the business of
> the Texinfo project.  By contrast, leaving it to individual projects
> to take care of references only they need makes a lot of sense to me.

Independently of what we have in the Texinfo htmlxref.cnf, we should
make what you propose possible, and we could indeed decide that it is
enough.  But my feeling is that the inter Texinfo manual
cross-references web is not easily split and that a main database has
merit.

> But you are the Texinfo maintainers, so it's your call.

The idea is not to maintain it by ourselves, but rather accept
patches...

> Is doi.org run by 2 volunteers, or does it maybe have a slightly
> larger staff?

;-)

> > and have the non GNU manuals be delagated somehow, but for now, as long
> > as we do not have such an structure, I think that it is better if we add
> > all the known Texinfo HTML manuals.
> 
> Why do you assume the referent manual must necessarily be a Texinfo
> manual?  That is completely not guaranteed.  It could be produced by
> Sphinx, for example, or some other HTML-authoring tool in use out
> there.

I do not really understand what you refer to, because I do not know much
outside of Texinfo, but I agree on the principle that, in a perfect
world, we should coordinate with all the software/publishing processes
that lead to resources that may be used as Texinfo manual names in
cross-references (@xref and similar, menus, nodes), even if they are not
obtained through conversion of a Texinfo manual.  This does not concern
the @url/@uref URLs, though.

-- 
Pat