Re: a new release ?

Might be worth an issue, but I don't think this should stop a release. 
 More comment below.

Dumas Patrice wrote:

>If you have
>
>@ref{First node, within ref a footnote @footnote{Putting footnotes in refs is bad}}
>
>You will end up with 
><a href="#SEC1">within ref a footnote <a name="DOCF2" href="#FOOT2">(2)</a></a>
>which is not valid (no <a> allowed in <a>).
>

The footnote should probably be ignored, probably with a printed warning 
message.

>Similarly, if you have
>@ref{First node,
>@verbatim
>verbatim text within a ref
>@end verbatim
>}
>
>You end up with 
><a href="#SEC1"><pre> some verbatim text within a ref </pre></a>
>which is not valid (no <pre> allowed in <a>).
>
>
>Those constructs are not terribly usefull, but makeinfo can process them
>(texi2dvi cannot).
>

This should probably be ignored with a warning too.  In your particular 
example, there is some sense in just inverting the tag order, but this 
is hardly the general case.

@ref{
@verbatim
verbatim text within a ref
@end verbatim
}

Would look as well as:
<pre><a href="#SEC1">some verbatim text within a ref</a></pre>
but that doesn't work as well with mixed verbatim and other text, like

@ref{First node
@verbatim
verbatim text within a ref
@end verbatim
more text.
}


Derek

-- 
                *8^)

Email: [email protected]

Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
-- 
160. I'm not a complete idiot - several parts are missing.