On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 07:51:00PM -0500, Karl Berry wrote: > > In the alternative, with texi2html's graphics, I'd find it more > comprehensible if they were in the order > << < Up > >>.
Indeed, I implemented it. There is also a variable that determines if headers in table (texi2html) are used or simple headers (like makeinfo). It is only set if called as texi2html. > The link to Sec_About (and that whole section) does not appeal to me. > The output should be self-explanatory. It is not output when simple headers are output. > Noticed in passing: I think texi2html's between-node rules are too big > -- just a simple <hr> seems enough? I kept a big rule for the top element, and between the elements and the misc elements (footnotes, contents...) when simple headers are not used. > 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. It is now controlled by a variable that is set only when called as texi2html. I don't like this advertizing footer either, but it is very usefull to find out manuals generated by texi2html. > 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 added an invisible unbreakable space. > 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. I removed the underlining, and I italicized the type, such that both are not in the same 'font'. -- Pat
