Peekay Ex wrote Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:30 PM
Here is a good (i.e. bad) example of inconsistent and, in my
opinion,
'noisy' index entries. This comes from repeats.itely
--snip--
@node Written-out repeats
@unnumberedsubsubsec Written-out repeats
@cindex written-out repeats
@cindex rep
Peekay Ex writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:49 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> The documentation is not really indexed all that well: new additions
>> often are made without indexing entries. Going through the source and
>> index and trying to make sure that interesting things can b
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:49 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> The documentation is not really indexed all that well: new additions
> often are made without indexing entries. Going through the source and
> index and trying to make sure that interesting things can be found under
> obvious names
[Resent because of missing list copy]:
Peekay Ex writes:
> In fact I'd say in some cases it is easier to not bother with the
> index but simply use the 'find' features of your favourite PDF or
> Webbrowser.
Our documentation is written in Texinfo, and the most obvious and
fastest target format
forwarding because I forgot to cc dev.
Sorry David, that wasn't mean to be aimed at you specifically.
James
-- Forwarded message --
From: Peekay Ex
Date: Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Another frog job: pepper the documentation with indexing commands
To:
The documentation is not really indexed all that well: new additions
often are made without indexing entries. Going through the source and
index and trying to make sure that interesting things can be found under
obvious names in the index is a bunch of work requiring mostly editorial
skills.
--
