My belief is that a manual should serve to describe and explain. Part of this effort should be spent on making the description appealing in prose and part in format. An unattractive looking manual does not serve the manuals interest in that it forces a reader to read prose in an unappealing format.
The Texinfo declaration of intent is to support a wide range of monitors and operating systems, and to have a single source document to feed many other type documents. These goals have been achieved, and have been remarkably done. However, I remember when documents where produced in fixed font only, and were printed on paper for dissemination; first on 132 column paper on huge printers, then on 80 column paper on small, commercial use, printers. This age began with TECO and Runoff and their ilk, with a, at the time, small recognition of TeX and Metafont. Texinfo comes from that age. We now have printers much more capable than that of 30+ years ago, and we have ways of distributing information which were almost unknown then. We have monitors capable of doing 'colorful' things which where almost unknown then. But Texinfo is a product of 'then'. I think that the Texinfo toolset and language should be rethought, if for nothing else then to see if the mental exercise is rewarding. What is sorely needed is a toolset for creation and a language suited for a more nuanced data presentation. Let me hazard that if Texinfo was replaced by HTML then most, if not all, the Texinfo goals would be satisfied, to wit, a means to make the documents widely available and many computers and operating systems. a formalized language, and tools to convert to other presentation formats, including Texinfo I would mention. Plus HTML can produce a much, much more attractive display. Without lauding the advantages of HTML over Texinfo let me say that if Texinfo were more like HTML the Texinfo goals would be reached, as a minimum, and the produced documents would be much more appealing. What then are the (my) minimum requirements? 1: An editor able to create, view, and modify documents. 2: An editor able to receive and convert documents from one format to another. 3: A 'language' suitable for presenting all of: a. Multiple fonts. b. Graphics (drawings). c. Images (gif, jpg, etc.) d. True tables. e. Multiple font colors. f. Better document navigation. e. etc. I might add (now lauding HTML) that HTML has all these things, and HTML is a widely accepted format with editors and convertors. There are more things, certainly. I would think that if the entire issue of Texinfo was rethought using what you know now, as opposed to when Texinfo was created, you would be able to produce a set of requirements different from the current. And a set of requirements what would last for another 30 years. The challenge is to think that rethinking should be done, and to do it. I think it is and would be a mistake not to spend time now looking towards the future. Sooner or later the future will be the present and would be a true shame if the community of users and developers shifted attention from your organization to others. Well, another morning well spent. art -----Original Message----- From: Eli Zaretskii [mailto:e...@gnu.org] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:33 PM To: Arthur Schwarz Cc: bug-texinfo@gnu.org Subject: Re: It's time for a change > From: "Arthur Schwarz" <aschwarz1...@att.net> > Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 07:54:15 -0700 > > Perhaps it's time to rethink a 30 year old theology. Rethink in what way and towards which goals?
