Re: a new release

> Pat, if you wouldn't mind looking at the questions I've been leaving in
> comments in the manual, I would appreciate it.  I've annotated all of my
> questions with my initials (`DRP').

About the node-files option ($NODE_FILES variable). It is true that files
with the node name as file name are written for external manual cross refs
in case this option is true.
However the default is false for this option.

--no-ifhtml is specified by using the --no-ifhtml command line switch. It
cannot be specified in config file, though. Maybe we should change that by
putting html in @EXPAND ? Any concern with that ?

default for --iso is false. Maybe we could set it to true in the default case.
It would be false for html3.2. It is allready true in xhtml.init.

--css-include related stuff is badly explained. It is nicely explained in
the texinfo manual and I didn't want to rewrite the whole explanation.

For the '.' in temporary directory for latex2html, I have absolutely no clue.
Maybe Olaf knows the reason, or maybe we could look at the latex2html doc.

> Finally, is there a good reason for the custhtml.texi and custpage.texi
> sections being kept outside the texi2html.texi file?  Automake doesn't
> know to update version.texi when those include files change.  It would
> be easier to combine those files into texi2html.texi than to get the
> Automake bug fixed, but maybe it is worth it?

There is no good reason. I did it because the original manual was even
more splitted. I see no problem in merging the files.

I have a remark about your corrections.
If we want to conform to the texinfo manual conventions, we should format
variables like $SPLIT with @code and not with @var as @var (according to 
the texinfo manual) is specific for abstract variables (function arguments).
Should we conform with this style ? (it is really easy to change because
it is in a @macro you rightly did).

Pat