On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 05:43:43PM -0600, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: > Gavin Smith wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:46:08AM -0800, Per Bothner wrote: > > > I know nothing about it - appears to have been added by Gavin: > > > > > > 2020-11-25 Gavin Smith <[email protected]> > > > > > > data-manual attribute > > > > > > * tp/Texinfo/Convert/HTML.pm (_convert_xref_commands): > > > Set data-manual attribute instead of class="texi-manual" > > > on links to other Texinfo manuals. > > > > > > > The purpose of this was to support locally installed HTML manuals better. > > The idea was that the contents of the data-manual attribute could be used > > for the name of a manual to be found in a search path. > > > > Use of data-* attributes was suggested in another thread and is valid HTML5: > > > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/HTML/Howto/Use_data_attributes > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2020-10/msg00085.html > > It is valid HTML5, but epub requires XHTML 1.1 and it is *not* valid there. > Most epub readers will *probably* silently ignore such invalid attributes, > but I would not be surprised if there is an embedded reader out there that > crashes in this case. > > Would distinct HTML4, HTML5, and XHTML 1.1 output modes, probably with a > common base, be feasible? HTML4 is preferable as a strict document format > and would eschew custom attributes in favor of CSS classes. HTML5 is > preferable for "web applications", such as a Web-based JavaScript Info > reader. XHTML 1.1 is required for epub standards conformance.
We barely have the manpower to maintain one HTML output mode. I seriously doubt we'd do a good job of maintining three. I say if there is a good practical reason to output valid XML/XHTML then we should output that instead, to the extent that epub readers actually need it.
