Re: html cross refs proposal

> By default there would be no file at all (I mean, "make install" is not
> going to install an htmlxref.cnf, since we're making the hardwired
> defaults the best we can do, anyway).  So packagers can create the file
> they want.  I don't yet see the need for them to have multiple files.

If I understand well, tou mean that htmlxref.cnf will only be used for site
customization. It implies that in the normal case the default targets
should be the right targets.

> If we allow multiple files, we should also define the priority, if the
> same manual is specified in different files.  Yuck.

We could leave it to the implementation. 
And a similar problem happens with htmlxref.cnf when there are more than one
entry for a manual.

> Sure, for shell scripts.  I'm not convinced, for this tiny configuration
> file.

The issue is not the size of the files, in my opinion, but their usefulness.
If the cross refs are right with the default targets they are not needed. 
If they are needed and should be set by packager the files are also needed.

Anyway it seems that you consider that the default targets will be right.
In that case, I think that we should precise a bit more where manuals 
have to be installed. Indeed, for the default refs to be right, all the 
manuals should be in the same directory. In that case, I think that we
should specify where those manuals should be, relative with the 
automake/autoconf $prefix, $pkgdatadir and so on. And targets or the like
should be added in automake/autoconf.

Pat
_______________________________________________
Texinfo home page: http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/
[email protected]
http://ff0.org/mailman/listinfo/texinfo-pretest