Re: proposal for html manual cross links

> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:03:21 +0100
> From: Dumas Patrice <[email protected]>
> 
> I don't see any possible way to do cross references with different encodings.

How about if we use the hex format _00XX of the 8-bit code, as if
these characters were ASCII punctuation?

> Here is an example:
> 
> @node @b{truc} @u{A} @point{}
> @node <b>truc</b> A( -!-
> 
> both lead to <a name="%3cb%3etruc%3c%2fb%3e%20A(%20-!-">

Is this example interesting?  We do discourage @-commands in node
names; your examples not only uses them, but also abuses that to
deliberately create node names which are literally different, but lead
to the same text after expansion.  Texinfo is quite loose in some
constructs, so it's easy to abuse it like that.  But are these
examples practical?  That is, would anyone in their right mind ever
use such names?

> The real issue here is what nodes should we consider as equal for the 
> purpose of cross references (the same questions would be interesting in a 
> more general context, that is when are nodes considered to be equal).
> 
> Maybe people reading this list could try to answer the following question.
> Should the following pair of node names be considered as equal (for the 
> purpose of html manual cross references and/or in documents):

They should be considered identical, but, with the current
implementation of makeinfo, it is very hard to do so, since command
expansion in node names imposes a tremendous performance hit, as
demonstrated by the use of --commands-in-node-names.  If we do
consider them identical, makeinfo will treat such nodes as an error
and refuse to process the file.

> The 4.6 code finds an error for the first pair only. 

Did you try --commands-in-node-names?
_______________________________________________
Texinfo home page: http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/
[email protected]
http://ff0.org/mailman/listinfo/texinfo-pretest