On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 04:40:37PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote: > I said at the time that it makes little sense to have "_html" in > URLs: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2022-02/msg00004.html > > The part of the "HTML Xref specification" mentioned here dates only to > 2022 and actually doesn't matter that much as usually htmlxref.cnf will > be used instead. I don't think we should be encouraging people to put > "_html" in their URLs. (It's obvious that it's an HTML page if people > are accessing it with a web browser.) It is not the important part of > this specification as far as I know - it's what is done with node names > that is the important part. > > I hope that people didn't feel encouraged to change the web URL > of manuals based on what was written in the "HTML Xref specification".
I did not really take your point into account in the end, I thought that the counter argument that consistency between default output directory and HTML Xref specification was more important, given that the "HTML Xref specification" directory is mainly relevant when the host is localhost, htmlxref.cnf should be used otherwise. But this could be changed back (maybe for 8.0, given what I said before ;-), together with some explanation of why there is a discrepancy between the "HTML Xref specification" and the default split output directory. Another possibility could be to leave the HTML Xref specification with manual_html/ but document that the directory portion of the "HTML Xref specification" is not important except for local collections of manuals and that in practice the directory name should be chosen based on the desired location and htmlxref.cnf should be used instead of the "HTML Xref specification" to resolve the directory part of the specification in general, be it only because otherwise the manual cannot be a target for cross-references of manuals from other hosts. Any preference? -- Pat
