Hi Sergey,
In my opinion, if the document contains @smallbook, each @smallX block
in HTML output should be handled as its @X counterpart
I'm not sure about this one.
In TeX, the @small... environments (as of maybe a couple years ago)
always produce smaller-than-the-main-size text, whether @smallbook or
not. Shouldn't HTML behave the same way? In general, all our changes
have been tending towards trying to make the HTML and TeX output be
closer, which seems reasonable.
In general,
1) I don't like @smallbook (and relatives). It goes against logical
markup. I don't think it should be used in any manual source or for
use on the web, only inserted when preparing something for an actual
physical print run. In fact @smallbook is more or less why I
invented texi2dvi -t years ago (not that the GNU Press ever cared,
but anyway ...).
2) I think @smallbook should be a no-op in HTML. (Which it is, I
believe.) The whole concept of "small book" seems inapplicable to me.
3) If you insist on using @smallbook (do you?), and you really want your
examples to come out in the same size, can you accomplish this by
having your own CSS which overrides the "font-size:smaller"
definitions? That was the intent, anyway.
4) I actually kind of like the way the HTML looks, with the slightly
smaller font size in the examples :).
Wdyt?
Thanks,
Karl
_______________________________________________
Texinfo home page: http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-texinfo
