[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Add support for generating HTML docs a` la PDF, etc.
From: |
Richard Dawe |
Subject: |
Re: Add support for generating HTML docs a` la PDF, etc. |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:57:16 +0000 |
Hello.
[ I've added address@hidden, since this is more than a discussion about the
patch now. Maybe I should have included it in the original recipient list. ]
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>
> >>> "Richard" == Richard Dawe <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Richard> Hello.
>
> Richard> Below is a patch that adds HTML documentation
> Richard> generation in a similar way to PDF, PostScript, etc. -
> Richard> by adding 'html' targets for texinfo sources from
> Richard> info_TEXINFOS.
>
> The problem, with html, is that nobody agree about what the
> ouput should be. I'd say that if we support html, we should
> use the default makeinfo output (which is to split on nodes),
> and let the user say `AM_MAKEINFOFLAGS = --no-split' when wanted.
> This is what we do for info files already.
OK. But then it gets hard to know which files to remove. Removing *.html seems
a bit dangerous to me. Perhaps some support script could produce a list of
nodes, so that we know remove the right HTML files. What should it be called?
texinodes?
> Still some people prefer using texi2dvi, and some also want to
> distribute html files. It seems hard to satisfy these.
Do you mean texi2html, rather than texi2dvi?
I think using makeinfo should be the default. Then how about supporting an
option in AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS, to use texi2html instead: html-texi2html?
Clearly texinodes (or whatever it's called) would need two modes, to cope with
different output filenames: makeinfo- and texi2html-modes.
> Richard> I know this is different to the way proposed in
> Richard> TODO. I read TODO afterwards. ;)
>
> Let's ignore TODO. I don't think we need html_TEXINFOS. Not until
> the GNU Coding Standards introduce a $(htmldir) variable.
>
> Right now we only install info files in $(infodir). Other
> ps/pdf(/html) targets are there only for convenience.
>
> Richard> For consistency, if an html_TEXINFOS thing (primary?)
> Richard> is added, it seems that there should be pdf_TEXINFOS,
> Richard> etc. too.
>
> eww...
8)
> Richard> This patch also does not update the example given
> Richard> about html_DATA in the automake.texi manual. So this
> Richard> patch isn't complete - it's more a conversation
> Richard> starter. ;)
>
> For a starter the patch looks very great to me! I think it is
> worth a NEWS entry. Also the test case should better make sure
> files are cleaned up properly (I'd do this with `$MAKE distcheck'),
> with or without --no-split (if we are going to support this).
OK. I think we should support --no-split. I was trying to make an "easy"
starter patch.
Thanks, bye, Rich =]
--
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]
- Re: Add support for generating HTML docs a` la PDF, etc.,
Richard Dawe <=