Re: bad relative urls in texinfo-4.0f

[Per Bothner]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Per Bothner wrote:

> In the URL bar, yes.  But this also happens with many other documents: 
> e.g., go to http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html, click 
> on "How To Get GNU Software", and you will see this in the URL bar:
> >    http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html#HowToGetSoftware

Yes, when the anchor points to a specific location or sub-section of
the file.  However, I'm talking about a section node whose Next
points to the next section, and that Next section is (one or more)
whole html files.  Of course if an html file contains multiple
sections, then a reference to a section must point to an anchor
within the file.  But logically, if a section is a while file (or
multiple files) then a refernece to a section should reference
file whole file. Using an anchor is *wrong* and confusing, because
the reference is to the whole page, not a part of it.  IMO.


> > > And they are not redundant, even when there's only one node per file: the 
> > > file does not begin with the node text, so the direct link to the anchor 
> > > makes sure you land on the text, not on the preamble.

The difference in Mozilla 20020125 is a tiny amount of whitespace.
There is is no preamble, except for the Node/Next/Previous/Link, which
is visible either way.  (Certainly, it *should* be visible.)

> You could have an HTML document that has free text before the actual 
> node.

I have no idea what you mean by this.  The only way it makes sense to
me is that you can have "header" elements (including navigation links)
at the top of an HTML page, and this comes before the text generated
from the texinfo node.  Well, yes, and in that case I want to see
that header.  If I click Next from one section, I want the new section
to come up with the heading and navigation links at the top, without
having to scroll back.

> You know that when you process the @node line, but not when you process 
> the @xref command.  Especially if it's a forward reference, let alone a 
> reference to another document (which might not even exist yet).  This is 
> _the_ most important reason for adding those anchors.  I don't see any 
> way to solve this complication without having the anchors.

How about a compromise:  Use the #foo anchors for cross-references, but
leave them out for Next, Prev, and menus, assuming you know are
generating at least one node for the referenced node.

Besides, if the option is split-by-node, or no-split, there is never a
need to use the anchors.

> > Who cares about slow-down?
> I do.

Compiling texinfo to html is not done interactively, and it is
plenty fast enough as it is.  Adding an extra pass *if* it seems
neceaarily should be ok.

> As I mentioned above, you see these #Foo things in lots of HTML 
> documents.  It's not that Texinfo is the only one.

Yes, but most other documents don't use #Foo to refer to the top
or entirety of the document.
--
        --Per Bothner
address@hidden   http://www.bothner.com/per/