On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:28:22PM +0100, pertu...@free.fr wrote:
> For anchors added for removed nodes, I do not think that we should
> try to have anything special done, as anchors added for removed nodes
> should not be used as soon as possible, if it just works it should be
> enough.
Yes, I su
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 12:46:26AM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 07:57:44PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > Surely it's better not to use them if they have only recently been
> > added to the standards.
>
> There were not in
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080122/#ent
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 08:43:54PM +0100, pertu...@free.fr wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 07:36:54PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > > I think that it is too much special casing that would lead to unexpected
> > > results and too much code to handle, since we could have instead a
> > > simpler alte
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 07:36:54PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > I think that it is too much special casing that would lead to unexpected
> > results and too much code to handle, since we could have instead a
> > simpler alternative, with a command like
> > @anchornamed{Software Copying Permissions
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:28:22PM +0100, pertu...@free.fr wrote:
> > Then if we used @xrefname instead, then it would make sense that this
> > should also provide the text for links to both the node and the anchor:
> >
> > @node Document Permissions
> > @nodedescription Ensuring your manual is fr
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 04:04:45PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 04:04:53PM +0100, pertu...@free.fr wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 07:13:43PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 07:37:23PM +0100, pertu...@free.fr wrote:
> > > The user could also specify
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 04:04:53PM +0100, pertu...@free.fr wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 07:13:43PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 07:37:23PM +0100, pertu...@free.fr wrote:
> > > One possibility, which is not very acceptable either would be to allow
> > > an empty @anchorn
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 07:13:43PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 07:37:23PM +0100, pertu...@free.fr wrote:
> > One possibility, which is not very acceptable either would be to allow
> > an empty @anchorname to remove the link between a @node and @heading,
> > for example
> >
