Re: html texinfo install?

[Paul Eggert]

address@hidden (Karl Berry) writes:

> As long as we don't standardize install-html and uninstall-html, we
> don't have to make a std directory.  I'd rather not.
> 
> The only reason I care about standardizing the texinfo-generated html is
> so packages that don't use Autoconf (there are a few) will do the same
> thing, and those darn cross-manual xrefs will work.

It sounds like you want to standardize (1) the name of the standard
directory (for cross-manual refs), but you don't want to standardize
(2) the method for installing HTML files into that directory.

I looked at how the GNU coding standards deal with info files.  They
specify (1) in <http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_54.html>, and they
specify (2) in <http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_55.html> and even go
so far as to provide a sample rule for installation.  If the coding
standards didn't specify how to install info files, there would be
even more confusion about them than there already is.  This suggests
that we may need to do something similar for html in the standards,
even if there's no automated support for it in Autoconf.

> However, since none of the autoconf maintainers have replied yet, I fear
> this whole discussion is moot ...

I think this whole idea is a good one, and I'll volunteer to shepherd
whatever code and documentation that you write into Autoconf, whenever
you and RMS decide what the standard should be.