On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 18:04, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > From: Matthias Kretz <m.kr...@gsi.de> > > Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:54:50 +0200 > > > > On Monday, 12 July 2021 16:30:23 CEST Martin Liška wrote: > > > On 7/12/21 4:12 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > I get it that you dislike the HTML produced by Texinfo, but without > > > > some examples of such bad HTML it is impossible to know what exactly > > > > do you dislike and why. > > > > I believe Martin made a really good list. > > Gavin Smith, the GNU Texinfo maintainer, responded in detail to that > list. However, his message didn't get through to the list, for some > reason.
It did: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-July/236744.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574987.html The HTML attachment has been stripped though. The relevant part of the HTML looks like this: <dt id='index-_002d_002dgreeting'><span><samp>--greeting=<var>text</var></samp><a href='#index-_002d_002dgreeting' class='copiable-anchor'> ¶</a></span></dt> <dt><span><samp>-g <var>text</var></samp></span></dt> <dd><span id="index-_002dg"></span> <p>Output <var>text</var> instead of the default greeting. </p> </dd> Note the <a ...> ¶ </a> anchor that is part of the <dt> element, not the <dd> (where the index-__002d anchor is still located). > Can someone please see why, and release his message? I think > he makes some important points, and his message does deserve being > posted and read as part of this discussion. He shows that some of the linking issues are addressed in the latest texinfo release, which is great. But it doesn't negate all Martin's other points. GCC devs and users who frequently modify or refer to the HTML docs want to replace texinfo. One vocal objector who just keeps repeating that texinfo is fine should not block that progress.
