On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 02:35:00PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote: > I'm happy with using "^HIndex cp" as an anchor name for the "cp" index.
I do not think that it convey that Index is actually a kind of specifier and not a true anchor name. I would prefer: "^HIndex^H cp" or, which would actually be my preferred format: "^HIndex: cp" > We don't know what kind of computers people will be using in 2065 or whether > people then will have any interest in the Info format so I suggest not > thinking > on such a long timeframe. You're also assuming that Texinfo is going to be > actively maintained until then and follow a plan set out at the current date. We don't know much about the future, but this is not a reason not to plan as well as possible transitions to have a clean state after some years. Having it well documented, choices explained and made such that it integrates well into the format also helps future selves or future maintainers to avoid a need to think again about the issue out of context. I still think that * we should think about this as a future tag field * have Info readers already handle both the backward compatibility format and the future tag field * write down the plan for the transition -- Pat
