This is the mail archive of the
automake@gnu.org
mailing list for the automake project.
Re: Add support for generating HTML docs a` la PDF, etc.
- From: Bruce Korb <bkorb at veritas dot com>
- To: Richard Dawe <rich at phekda dot freeserve dot co dot uk>
- Cc: automake at gnu dot org
- Cc: automake-patches at gnu dot org
- Cc: Alexandre Duret-Lutz <duret_g at lrde dot epita dot fr>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:54:12 -0800
- Subject: Re: Add support for generating HTML docs a` la PDF, etc.
- References: <E18nQfb-0001el-00@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> <2003-02-24-23-49-54+7299+duret_g@lrde.epita.fr> <3E5B4C0C.E76B4AA1@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Richard Dawe wrote:
> > 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?
Perhaps dump all the .texi-derived files into a subdirectory?
WRT what program and options to use, you'll need two substitution
variables. The texi2html output is just so much better than
the makeinfo version that there must be a way to say, "use that."
> > 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)
Time to rethink the mechanism. :-)