On 18 July 2015 at 15:28, Arthur Schwarz <aschwarz1...@att.net> wrote: > 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.
Also print and possibly sound. > 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. >From the beginning Texinfo could be processed as TeX, which doesn't require fixed-width fonts. > 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. "Rethought." Who's doing the rethinking - you or someone else? If it's you, well done. I hope you will be able to make good suggestions. > 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. But this is the Texinfo mailing list. What's the point of telling people here to use HTML instead of Texinfo? This says nothing about the relative merits of each as a source format. If someone wants to use HTML as a source for a printed document, and they succeed in doing so, well done to them. Why do you say that HTML can produce a more attractive display? What could be done with HTML that can't already be done with Texinfo's existing HTML output? > What then are the (my) minimum requirements? > 1: An editor able to create, view, and modify documents. Texinfo can be edited with a text editor. I'm personally happy doing this. Some people might like to use a more WYSIWIG editing program. Somebody would have to develop such a thing. > I might add (now lauding HTML) that HTML has all these things, and HTML is a > widely accepted format with editors and convertors. If anyone wants to write better or more editors or converters for Texinfo, that would be a great thing, but just saying that doesn't make it happen. > 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. As I said, it's easy to say that other people should rethink. It's a generality that may sound profound, but which is actually useless.
