Last(est) Texinfo version that generates HTML4 output?
Nutchanon Wetchasit <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.tex.texinfo.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <SG2PR01MB4495581C254A620FE0B03BBE98F59@SG2PR01MB4495.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> |
Hello,
Following is going to be an unusual question,
concerning a very specific usage scenario and requirement
that intentionally goes against what's so-called
"best-practices" set by industries-that-must-not-be-named...
(See below "-----" if you would like to skip right to the question)
I came from the DocBook world, and I'm just starting
a new hardware documentation project as my first writing project
that uses Texinfo markup format; without having any real background
in plain TeX and derivatives. The age of machine I am doing this on
is approaching a decade, and Texinfo toolchain version
I am currently using is 4.3.
The HTML output it gave was more or less what I expected,
but some corner cases of its macro interpretation [1]
and its TeX/PDF output [2] got some bugs that affected my uses;
so I am considering to install a newer Texinfo toolchain
*alongside* the existing one.
But I have also noticed that the on-WWW version of GNU software manuals
have switched to use `<!DOCTYPE html>` header for some time now.
This could be inferred that the latest version of Texinfo toolchain
produces HTML-MovingGoalpost [3] either by default, or as the *only*
SGML-like HTML format offered. This is not what I would like
to produce my document in however...
I rather prefer my document to be converted into a markup format
that is properly standardized (i.e. long-standing non-changing
properly-versioned specification that people from the past, present,
or future, could realistically write independent viewers for)
for information longevity reasons. In SGML-style [4] WWW markups,
this means W3C HTML 4.01 a.k.a. ISO 15445:2000. For that reason,
I think the latest version of Texinfo might not fit for my needs.
-----
So what I would like to know is: what is the last version of GNU Texinfo
that its `makeinfo` or `texi2html` utility produces SGML-style HTML output
which DOES NOT make _any_ use of HTML construct introduced after HTML 4.01?
I have skimmed through NEWS files in the current VCS repository
[5][6][7][8], but it's still not to clear which was the actual version
which fits that criterion in the term of actual markup usage
(rather than the `<!DOCTYPE>` switch [9]).
The output of such version doesn't have to fully validate as HTML 4.01
(I'm willing to patch it myself to make it so [10], if necessary),
but it need to have no trace of any HTML-MovingGoalpost usage in it.
And lastly, are there any caveats/gotchas to avoid when having
more than one version of Texinfo installed on the same system?
I plan to install it using configure option like `--prefix=/opt/texinfo`.
(I guess there would be at least one: the installation location
of `texinfo.tex` and how to reference a correct one when typesetting
into TeX/PDF)
Note: I know there is a hard way to find out about this;
but attempting to binary-search (a la `git bisect`) build
through all Texinfo releases might not be a trivial undertaking
on such an old machine; especially if there is a possibility
that some newer version might require dependency version
which my setup does not readily provide; so I would like
to ask first, and only do that as the last resort.
Sincerely,
Nutchanon Wetchasit
[1] I attempted to rig up a new inline quote macro to make Texinfo
produce "``something''" through TeX but produce "<q>something</q>"
in HTML (an analog of DocBook's `<quote>` construct);
but its macro definition translation got some quirk
which introduced space between the quotes and its content,
and required a hack which somehow sat okay with TeX-based pipeline
but blew up in HTML conversion.
[2] `@ref{Somenode}` produced "<undefined> [Somenode], page <undefined>"
in the paper output, no matter that it was `texi2pdf`, `texi2dvi --pdf`,
or `texi2dvi` followed by `dvi2ps`. (Though that phrase in
PDF outputs would still link to the target page properly
when viewed under a PDF viewer software;
it would not be very helpful in print)
[3] Known by its proponents as "HTML5" or "WHATWG HTML/LS".
[4] I do see W3C XHTML 1.0 as properly-standardized, but at least
one of the U/As I care about (Dillo 3.0.2) won't display that;
so I would rather prefer HTML 4.01 whenever possible.
[5] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/texinfo.git/tree/ChangeLog.46?id=dabcb0d4439025174a2eebacc20fbfc0924ba148
[6] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/texinfo.git/tree/ChangeLog.65?id=dabcb0d4439025174a2eebacc20fbfc0924ba148
[7] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/texinfo.git/tree/ChangeLog.70?id=dabcb0d4439025174a2eebacc20fbfc0924ba148
[8] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/texinfo.git/tree/ChangeLog?id=dabcb0d4439025174a2eebacc20fbfc0924ba148
[9] A `<!DOCTYPE>` change was recorded on the changelog at 18-Dec-2021
<https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/texinfo.git/tree/ChangeLog.70?id=dabcb0d4439025174a2eebacc20fbfc0924ba148#n10773>
describing commit 80a7bb01f96fd0b3251bf512a06d5feb4bafc7d7
<https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/texinfo.git/commit/?id=80a7bb01f96fd0b3251bf512a06d5feb4bafc7d7>
which would mean that TexInfo 6.8 (3-Jul-2021) is being
the last version that advertises HTML 4.01 DTD reference
in the HTML output; but this might not be necessarily representative
of the actual markup generated.
[10] Meanwhile, in DocBook XSLT, there is actually a setting flag
to make it try hardest to produce a validating HTML output;
and it did work as advertised the last time I used it
with my own DocBook XML 4.x markup.