[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes: > As long as we don't standardize install-html and uninstall-html, we > don't have to make a std directory. I'd rather not. > > The only reason I care about standardizing the texinfo-generated html is > so packages that don't use Autoconf (there are a few) will do the same > thing, and those darn cross-manual xrefs will work.
It sounds like you want to standardize (1) the name of the standard directory (for cross-manual refs), but you don't want to standardize (2) the method for installing HTML files into that directory. I looked at how the GNU coding standards deal with info files. They specify (1) in <http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_54.html>, and they specify (2) in <http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_55.html> and even go so far as to provide a sample rule for installation. If the coding standards didn't specify how to install info files, there would be even more confusion about them than there already is. This suggests that we may need to do something similar for html in the standards, even if there's no automated support for it in Autoconf. > However, since none of the autoconf maintainers have replied yet, I fear > this whole discussion is moot ... I think this whole idea is a good one, and I'll volunteer to shepherd whatever code and documentation that you write into Autoconf, whenever you and RMS decide what the standard should be.
