On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 04:34:20PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > 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"
"^HIndex: cp" is better in my opinion as it looks better if the user sees it. > > 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 think it's fine to use a line like "Ref: ^HIndex: cp^?1234" permanently. There's nothing particularly wrong with that even if it wasn't how we would design the Info format if starting from scratch. > 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 It may be ok to support an "Index:" tag in the Info browser although I don't see that it would ever be used.
