On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 06:32:44PM -0500, Karl Berry wrote:
Anyway, it's an interesting hypothetical world we're entering into. I
feel I should at least mention it to rms, but if he doesn't have violent
objections (which he might), and you are willing to work on the missing
back end(s), and
On 2008/07/10 18:32 -0500, Karl Berry wrote:
John, I know you expressed concern about speed, but I guess I just find
it hard to believe that it would matter that much.
I agree speed is not an important criterion with today's computers, as
text formatting doesn't require so much memory and
On 2008/07/11 02:28 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
If you want to go down this road, I would certainly need lots of help on
the info backend since I don't know the format. If you are interested in
using texi2html as a makeinfo replacement I could certainly commit to
implement the docbook and xml
On 2008/07/11 10:46 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
I think it is worth mentionning the weaknesses of texi2html. I think
that the most problematic one is the home made parser. It is not that
complicated for the 2 first passes. But in the last pass, it gets very
complicated. There is a stack
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:58:40PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
In case it wasn't clear from what I previously wrote, note that I
haven't read texi2html code; I only skimmed a little through it, and I
might understand that you are lost in it, when you have very long
functions (1442 lines for
it is quite messy and I am often lost in it.
I don't know if you've ever looked at the makeinfo source code, but
believe me, it is worse than what you are describing. (I have never
really looked at texi2html, despite maintaining it briefly. :)
makeinfo does not do multiple passes at all.
