> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:13:04 +0100
> From: pertu...@free.fr
> Cc: Gavin Smith <gavinsmith0...@gmail.com>, ar...@aarsen.me,
> help-texinfo@gnu.org
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 09:29:59AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > For example, I looked at the mentioned code at
> > > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/admin/admin.el
> > > (the manual-html-fix-* functions) and it is not instantly apparent what
> > > all of the code is supposed to achieve.
> >
> > Welcome to the club. The person(s) who wrote that code are no longer
> > active in Emacs development, so asking them is not an option.
>
> Is there somebody still overseeing that process in term of desired
> output?
I do, but I just quickly compare how the new and the previous manuals
look, to make sure the look-and-feel are preserved. I don't review
(and frequently don't even understand well enough) the stuff that is
not shown, but which affects the browser reaction to some gestures.
> > My suggestion is to compare the original HTML files produced by
> > makeinfo with the massaged files on the GNU Software site, and try
> > guessing from the diffs what that code is trying to do. My hope is
> > that any HTML expert (which I am not) will have a good guess by
> > looking at the diffs (and possibly also at how the results of
> > processing are shown in a browser, as compared to the original HTML
> > files produced by makeinfo).
>
> I did that. There are some changes that I understand, but some that I
> don't. I know almost nothing about lisp, but looking at the code and at
> the output, it seems to me that most of the code does nothing nowadays,
> or have unintended consequences. It seems actually that this code was
> mainly targeting Texinfo 5 (and older) makeinfo HTML output but has not
> really been changed to work with more recent releases. This is visible
> in constructs that are matched that are, in general, no longer present,
> although it is unclear whether matching is intended or not.
>
> Here are my interrogations. First I have three questions about removed
> HTML in the that look suspicious to me. I think that it should be
> checked if this is intended, my wild guess is that it is not:
> 1) the Copyright notice in comments at the very beginning is removed.
Is it important?
> 2) the <link href=... rel=... > in <head> are removed, for example
> <link href="#Top" rel="start" title="top">
> <link href="#Starting-Rules" rel="next" title="Starting Rules">
Look at how the produced HTML looks vs the one on the site: those
links are the "Short TOC", which is completely redundant for reading
the manual on-line.
> 3) For non split output, the first header/navigation panel is removed.
Because it is not relevant and confusing. It has links to
"Distribution", "Contents", and "Index", all unnecessary, because they
are right there in the TOC.
> The other main interrogation is about the manual-html-fix-index-1,
> manual-html-fix-index-2 defun and closing </div> code in manual-html-mono
> manual-html-node. Most of these codes seems to do nothing nowadays,
> except for one thing, adding, right after <body ...> an
> <div id="content" class="inner">
> and adding matching </div>. The matching </div> is at the very end of the
> file for the mono manual, and right before the table of contents
> in the node split index.html file. It is not clear to me what this div
> is used for.
Sorry, I don't know.
> My last important interrogation is about CSS. The whole CSS added by
> texi2any is removed, instead of using the possibility offered by the
> command-line. My feeling is that what is done right now would be better
> achieved either by calling with
> --css-include=/software/emacs/manual.css
> although it may not lead to the wanted result if there is some
> disagreement between the CSS output bu texi2any and the emacs CSS.
> Another possibility would be to add a file named, for example
> import_emacs_css.css which would only contain
>
> @import url('/software/emacs/manual.css');
>
> and use
> --css-ref=..../import_emacs_css.css
> at the command-line.
>
> I think that it would be better if the texi2any CSS was kept as some is
> important for some features, such as copiable links. In the CSS file
> https://www.gnu.org/style.css I also noticed that some parts refer to
> classes no longer used, which is ok if old releases are targeted, but
> the new class is not there, which makes wonder if some of the code is
> still needed.
Maybe. I know very little about CSS and its effects on the produced
HTML manuals.
> It seems to me that the manual-html-fix-node-div defun does nothing
> for recent Texinfo releases.
That's possible and completely reasonable. I explained why we don't
want to rely on how recent the Texinfo installation is on the system
where the Emacs release is being worked on.