Yes "Can't locate Texinfo/ModulePath.pm" is the error message.
Sorry, maybe I should have joined in and corrected immediately, but the
latest working version is actually 6.5, not 6.6, I do not have a 6.6
binary in my collection, so I had no knowledge if this problem exists there.
As to how 6.
> On Dec 19, 2021, at 11:11, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>
> Patrice Dumas wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 01:58:30PM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/18/21 13:01, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>>>
It seems that it does not change the work required compared to XHTML 1.1
which is to h
> On Dec 19, 2021, at 11:01, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>
> Gavin Smith wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:08:24AM +0900, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a place *now* where HTML4 is a requirement ? HTML5 is the only
>>> *current* standard and does not specifically target web ap
Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 01:58:30PM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
On 12/18/21 13:01, Patrice Dumas wrote:
It seems that it does not change the work required compared to XHTML 1.1
which is to have a correct XML document. Something I cannot find,
however, is what to put a
Gavin Smith wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 05:43:43PM -0600, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
Gavin Smith wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:46:08AM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
I know nothing about it - appears to have been added by Gavin:
2020-11-25 Gavin Smith
data-manual attr
Gavin Smith wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:08:24AM +0900, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
Is there a place *now* where HTML4 is a requirement ? HTML5 is the only
*current* standard and does not specifically target web applications.
We output HTML4 to get some flexibility in the outp
Hello,
Right now, USE_NUMERIC_ENTITY means
For HTML and XML. If set, use numeric entities instead of ASCII
characters when there is no named entity. By default, set to true
for HTML.
I think that it is not logical. It would be better to name differently
that customization option
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 03:15:04PM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
>
> If you want command-line/batch testing of well-formedness then nxml-mode
> is probably not your best bet.
Ok.
> One possibility is to use xltproc with a null or identity stylesheet.
Ok, I think I managed to do that, this should be
On 12/18/21 14:20, Patrice Dumas wrote:
I tried that with the https://validator.w3.org/, also using .xhtml as
extension as it seems that it is what makes the w3c validator consider
that it is XML, with and without , and I get:
Schema Error: XML document with no namespace; cannot determine
On 12/18/21 14:33, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 05:21:26PM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
Emacs nxml mode should be sufficient to check well-formedness.
Is there documentation on how use nxml mode to check well-formedness
from the command line? I cannot find any information on
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 05:21:26PM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
>
> Emacs nxml mode should be sufficient to check well-formedness.
Is there documentation on how use nxml mode to check well-formedness
from the command line? I cannot find any information on that on the
web. All the information I fou
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 01:58:30PM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
>
>
> On 12/18/21 13:01, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > It seems that it does not change the work required compared to XHTML 1.1
> > which is to have a correct XML document. Something I cannot find,
> > however, is what to put at the beginni
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 06:20:34PM +0100, Kurt Hornik wrote:
> > Jacob Bachmeyer writes:
>
> What I ended up doing is set up a local W3C service. On Debian, after
>
> apt-get install w3c-markup-validator
>
> https://github.com/ysangkok/w3c-validator-runner
>
> and indeed after downloadin
On 12/18/21 13:01, Patrice Dumas wrote:
It seems that it does not change the work required compared to XHTML 1.1
which is to have a correct XML document. Something I cannot find,
however, is what to put at the beginning to be able to check validity
of the resulting document if it is HTML5 XML
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 08:43:23AM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
> On 12/18/21 07:38, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > The idea is that it would be set if doing XHTML 1.1, be it for epub or
> > as an output, as it is a prerequisite for epub if I understood right.
> >
> > For now, my plan is to do XHTML1.1 as
On 12/18/21 07:46, Gavin Smith wrote:
We output HTML4 to get some flexibility in the output, but I am not sure
how useful the HTML4 doctype declaration is any more and perhaps we should
switch to the simpler HTML5 "" header. It looks like we are
trying to conform to a standard that nobody car
On 12/18/21 06:59, Gavin Smith wrote:
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 2:54 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Is this part supposed to work also when Texinfo is installed in a
directory different from the prefix with which it was configured?
No, it is only for running from the source/build directory, not for
On 12/18/21 07:38, Patrice Dumas wrote:
The idea is that it would be set if doing XHTML 1.1, be it for epub or
as an output, as it is a prerequisite for epub if I understood right.
For now, my plan is to do XHTML1.1 as a separate init file.
Why? XHTML 1.1 is an obsolete format. It is not requ
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:08:24AM +0900, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
> Is there a place *now* where HTML4 is a requirement ? HTML5 is the only
> *current* standard and does not specifically target web applications.
>
We output HTML4 to get some flexibility in the output, but I am not sure
how
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 03:34:42PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 07:08:33PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > I remember not being in favor of an attribute that is not defined in
> > HTML, even if it is acceptable in HTML5. But if it has been added, I am
> > pretty sure that it
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 07:08:33PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> I remember not being in favor of an attribute that is not defined in
> HTML, even if it is acceptable in HTML5. But if it has been added, I am
> pretty sure that it is usefull for somebody (maybe Per javascript?). I
> propose to add
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 05:43:43PM -0600, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> Gavin Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:46:08AM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
> > > I know nothing about it - appears to have been added by Gavin:
> > >
> > > 2020-11-25 Gavin Smith
> > >
> > > data-manual attribu
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 2:54 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Is this part supposed to work also when Texinfo is installed in a
> directory different from the prefix with which it was configured?
No, it is only for running from the source/build directory, not for
the installed program.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:21:53PM +, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> Care to cook up such a possibly failing example?
With your patch, the following produces a malformed PDF file:
@example
aaa
@setcolor{0.7 0.7 0.2}bbb
@setcolor{0 0 0}ccc
ddd @r{@setcolor{0.2 0.7 0.7}comment@setcolor{0 0 0}}
eee
@en
> From: Gavin Smith
> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 14:44:39 +
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , bug-texinfo@gnu.org
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 05:52:45PM -0600, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> > If they can have a location fixed relative to the script, the Perl core
> > module FindBin and pragmatic module lib can he
> From: Gavin Smith
> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 14:43:18 +
> Cc: bug-texinfo@gnu.org
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 08:58:04AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > No, I think this was before 6.7. If I compare makeinfo between 6.6
> > and 6.7, I see that these parts were modified:
> >
> > # To fin
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 05:52:45PM -0600, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> If they can have a location fixed relative to the script, the Perl core
> module FindBin and pragmatic module lib can help here:
>
> use FindBin;
> use lib "$FindBin::Bin/../lib";
texi2any already can find itself for running from
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 08:58:04AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> No, I think this was before 6.7. If I compare makeinfo between 6.6
> and 6.7, I see that these parts were modified:
>
> # To find Texinfo::ModulePath
> if (!defined($ENV{'top_builddir'})) {
> $ENV{'top_builddir'} = Fil
28 matches
Mail list logo
