On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 09:52:56PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Please realize that the documentation is written in texinfo, not > directly in the Info format.
Sorry, I didn't make that clear enough in my original post. My suggestion was that we should consider *more* flexible systems than texinfo. I just thought that SGML might make a better system for some purposes. There's nothing to stop you writing or generating [tex]info format if that's what you prefer, but it would make sense to use a Web-like interface rather than an Info-like one. My major quibble with info is that the "dir" file is invariably wrong (even on my stock Debian GNU/Linux system), so "info standards" doesn't work if "standards" isn't in /usr/info/dir even if "standards.info" is in /usr/info. Perhaps it would make sense to use a heirachy of directories for different types of programs and have info read the directories, e.g. /usr/info/Editors/emacs.info /usr/info/Languages/C/gcc.info /usr/info/Misc/jargon.info.gz etc. Also, perhaps "man" should search for an info document if a man page isn't found (removing the requirement to produce man pages for programs that already have info pages). You could also do some trickery to allow printing a` la troff-based man by calling texi2dvi. Either way, the man/info duality isn't especially helpful at the moment. > Moreover, it is the GNU standard. So is their idiosyncratic C formatting style, and signing ownership of a program over to the FSF; many people choose not to follow these recommendations because they're not convenient. I'm not knocking texinfo---hypertext and printable documentation from a standard format is a great idea. I'd just like to see the implementation made less confusing. :) -- Adam Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
