On 2008/07/08 09:32 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 10:35:42AM +0200, John Mandereau wrote: > > > 1) clearly separating parsing from formatting, > > 2) using GUILE to store parsed Texinfo input, so one can write Scheme > > code to play with this input, > > 3) making HTML output completely customizable (like texi2html), using > > GUILE (like LilyPond), > > In case it wasn't clear, texi2html does the 3 items (except that the > tree is not a GUILE tree, but a tree of perl references).
I'd be happy if texi2html completely replaced makeinfo, except that using an interpreted language in all 3 steps makes it run significantly slower, hence my starting effort to write an implementation with a parser written in a compiled language. > If you want to have a look at how things are done in texi2html, there > are 2 things that I think should be dropped from a texinfo converter, > namely the index splitting, and the possibility to have things like > > @emph{Bla. > > New paragraph.} Are you sure it's a good idea to drop these features? > I am the main and most of the time only author of the code that does the > parsing of texinfo (though not necessarily the regexp), and I can put > any piece of my code in the public domain if you want to reuse/translate > it. Thank you :-) I haven't read texi2html code in detail, but this probably helps. Best, John