[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die
From: |
Rüdiger Sonderfeld |
Subject: |
Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die |
Date: |
Fri, 05 Dec 2014 18:12:27 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-40-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) |
On Friday 05 December 2014 17:02:39 David Kastrup wrote:
> Can it be related to "Yelp" (the GNOME documentation viewer) nominally
> supporting images, but if you start it on documentation containing not
> merely a few novelty images but documenting every feature with example
> images (like the LilyPond info tree does), it will hang literally
> forever?
>
> Emacs is the _only_ Info reader I know that can handle the LilyPond
> documentation including images. The standalone info reader is not
> phased by the LilyPond documentation, but it does not show the images
> either.
I think the problem was that they never considered *.info to support images.
That's why they never installed the images to the info directory in the first
place and then started to add replacement text. It seems pretty rare to
actually see image files to be distributed with packaged info documents. Just
take a look at your /usr/share/info (depends on your distribution of course).
Before I submitted the patch to GNU Octave the only image there I found was a
single one for libidn. I don't have LilyPond installed, but it seems that the
Debian package (lilypond-doc) does not install the images to the info
directory either: https://packages.debian.org/wheezy/all/lilypond-doc/filelist
Not sure if Debian is to blame or if LilyPond doesn't install them.
> Yes, and it is the only one really worth using. But Texinfo has more
> output formats than just Info.
The problem is that info(1) is what most people experience as info. But yeah,
in Emacs we have a good viewer considering the capabilities of the Info
format. And sadly other formats seem to lack index support. That's a problem
we need to solve if we abandon Info, independently of switching away from
Texinfo.
I think Texinfo itself has a few issues as well. I only started using it to
write documentation for the 24.4 release. I think Cross References (aka
links) are a bit confusing. Using a more popular language could lower the
entry barrier. But then again I have a bit of a doubt that a change to a
different format would really attract more people to writing documentation and
on the other hand it would certainly be a hassle for the majority of people
already writing documentation.
Regards,
Rüdiger
- Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die, (continued)
Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die, Glenn Morris, 2014/12/05
Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2014/12/06
Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die, Rüdiger Sonderfeld, 2014/12/05
Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/12/05
- Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die, Óscar Fuentes, 2014/12/05
- Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die, Richard Stallman, 2014/12/06
- Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die, Achim Gratz, 2014/12/06
- Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die, Steinar Bang, 2014/12/06
- Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die, Richard Stallman, 2014/12/07
- Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die, Steinar Bang, 2014/12/07