On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:37:07PM +, Karl Berry wrote:
>
> No warning for HTML, as well as docbook, sounds right to me.
Done.
--
Pat
Should I have a per format indicator that non empty @part is ok for
that format (in texi2any.pl)?
Yes, let's.
If so, should docbook be the only format not warned for, or should
also HTML be in that situation, as non empty @part is correctly
rendered in that format?
No warni
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:05:38PM +, Karl Berry wrote:
>
> I guess I'm ok with both parts of this (the and the
> non-docbook warning), but ...
I implemented that, but for now there is a warning for every format,
including docbook. Should I have a per format indicator that non empty
@part i
Hi Karl.
We're still disagreeing, but on a more subtle point.
> Not really - the translator should handle it.
>
> I don't agree. It's the same principle that you already stated: you're
> saying that Texinfo should support for Docbook, but we're
> saying that since it's not supported for a
Not really - the translator should handle it.
I don't agree. It's the same principle that you already stated: you're
saying that Texinfo should support for Docbook, but we're
saying that since it's not supported for any other format, that is not,
in theory, what we'd like.
In the specific
Hi Karl.
> 2. For all current features of the Texinfo language, the docbook output
>generated by makeinfo should be valid docbook. I think we all agree
>on this as a principle.
>
> Agreed.
>
>If we accept this, then for makeinfo --docbook, any text
>following @
2. For all current features of the Texinfo language, the docbook output
generated by makeinfo should be valid docbook. I think we all agree
on this as a principle.
Agreed.
If we accept this, then for makeinfo --docbook, any text
following @part and preceding the f
Hi Karl.
> I'm sorry, but what you want for @part is something completely different
> than what I intended. Oddly enough, I implemented what I intended :),
> which was essentially just standalone "part pages" that bear no
> relationship to the rest of the document.
OK. We have a bad confluence o
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 11:43:20PM +, Karl Berry wrote:
>
> Does that work? That seems to me to best reflect the reality of the
> situation, which is that "partintro" text is a Docbook feature, not
> supported in Texinfo.
>
> - we revisit the "no text after @part" rule and decide somet
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 09:59:20AM +0300, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> Hi Karl and Patrice.
>
> > How about:
> >
> > @part Part Title
> > @docbook
> > intro to part blah blah
> > @end docbook
> >
> > Does that work? That seems to me to best reflect the reality of the
> > situation, which is that "part
Arnold,
I'm sorry, but what you want for @part is something completely different
than what I intended. Oddly enough, I implemented what I intended :),
which was essentially just standalone "part pages" that bear no
relationship to the rest of the document. For example, it is completely
intention
Hi Karl and Patrice.
> How about:
>
> @part Part Title
> @docbook
> intro to part blah blah
> @end docbook
>
> Does that work? That seems to me to best reflect the reality of the
> situation, which is that "partintro" text is a Docbook feature, not
> supported in Texinfo.
It probably works, but
Texi2dvi adds a full page for the text after @part, it is acceptable,
But ugly. Not what anyone would want to print in a real book.
@node node before part
@path the part
Nodes cannot be associated with parts. That would break everything.
* in any case, add in DocBook output
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 11:15:45PM +0300, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> Hi Patrice.
>
> Me:
> > > Right now if I use @docbook, I'm getting:
> > >
> > >
> > > introductory blah blah here
> > >
> > > < these are from what came before the part
> > >
> > >
> > >...
> > >
>
Hi Patrice.
Me:
> > Right now if I use @docbook, I'm getting:
> >
> >
> > introductory blah blah here
> >
> > < these are from what came before the part
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
Patrice:
> That looks like a bug, the DocBook produced does not even seem to b
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:59:43AM +0300, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> Hi Karl.
>
> > So, Texinfo @parts do not map to Docbook. Not surprising. Such is
> > life. To get parts in your Docbook output, all I can think of is the
> > useless "hack it in by hand" approach (e.g., throw comments into the
>
Hi Karl.
> So, Texinfo @parts do not map to Docbook. Not surprising. Such is
> life. To get parts in your Docbook output, all I can think of is the
> useless "hack it in by hand" approach (e.g., throw comments into the
> source and post-process them to create the necessary /related
> elements).
Hi Arnold,
So, Texinfo @parts do not map to Docbook. Not surprising. Such is
life. To get parts in your Docbook output, all I can think of is the
useless "hack it in by hand" approach (e.g., throw comments into the
source and post-process them to create the necessary /related
elements). Sorry.
Hi.
The @part command is somewhat mismatched with how docbook works. In
particular, parts include chapters, so for correct generation of the
docbook tags, we should really have
@part
@parttitle Title Of The Part Here
@chapter ...
@chapter ...
@end part
19 matches
Mail list logo
