On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 07:51:00PM -0500, Karl Berry wrote: > to have the best output that takes what is better in both. > > Yes. > > So, what would you like as default html output? More precisely, do you > think that the texi2html headers are great or bad, > > Hmm. I like seeing the node names, as makeinfo does.
The issue I see with the node names is that it is not easy to also have >> which leads to the next chapter. And also the header may be quite long. Can you please tell more precisely what would look like the header, for an example? > In the alternative, with texi2html's graphics, I'd find it more > comprehensible if they were in the order > << < Up > >>. Makes sense. > I like having the explicit link to Top and Index, as texi2html does. > (But what do you do when there's more than one index?) It links to the first element having a @printindex in it. > The link to Sec_About (and that whole section) does not appeal to me. > The output should be self-explanatory. Ok. > Normally the Contents link will be essentially the same as Top, > therefore I think it's not needed. Top is formatted like a menu, Content is formatted like a tree. Maybe the link to Top shouldn't be needed instead, and only the link to Content would be there? > Noticed in passing: I think texi2html's between-node rules are too big > -- just a simple <hr> seems enough? You are right. > what about the footer, > > I've never been too fond of the texi2html footer. It's very often > irrelevant who generated the document and the generation date can be > misleading (the sources might be ancient). That information is not > (visibly) written in any other output format. Of course it's fine/good > to have it all in comments in the source. Agreed. But the question is also about the footer directions. > do you like the letters in indices, > > Yes. I like texi2html's index formatting better. Except there should > be more space between the index term and the "page" reference -- looks > like it's just a single space in the xmaxima manual. I guess adding a row with an invisible space would do the trick portably. > the menu formatting? > > Here I kind of like makeinfo's list formatting with the bullets. There are, in fact more differences. The menu-headers are in th/thead in texi2html, (so, bold) and formatted in preformatted environment. The sections are used and not the node names. There is a formatting as table, separatng the menu-description apart from the node name. > Noticed in passing: I do not like the underlining of the defun words > like "Function". I'm not sure what should be done, bold maybe, but > underlining has such a strong association with links on the web. Bold is already used for the function name. But I agree that underline is not optimal. Maybe use italics (also used for argument?). > Manuals formatted with makeinfo can be more easily found, notably below > http://www.gnu.org/manual/ > > It might be helpful to format a couple of documents both ways, so we can > compare directly. E.g., the Hello manual (simple) and the Texinfo > manual (complex). Good idea, I'll do that. Ok, it is on http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/comp_html/makeinfo/ http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/comp_html/texi2html/ -- Pat
