Re: html cross refs proposal

Hi Alper,

> I suppose the @ref in ``Testing manual name'' part should be:
> 
>     @verb{:../doc.texi:} @ref{node,,, ../doc.texi}@*
> 
> instead of:
> 
>     @verb{:../manual/doc.texi:} @ref{node,,, ../manual/doc.texi}@*
> 
> Is this correct?

I think both are correct. But the second shows a non trivial "feature" of
the proposal. And I think that you flaged it as an error because you
disagree with that part. Maybe that part could have been more discussed...

   manual name expansion
   ---------------------

   The manual description should only contain the following characters:
   [A-Za-z0-9-_/.], / and . having a special meaning. It is interpreted as
   a file name. The last element of the file with extension stripped is the
   manual name.

Thus ../doc.texi and ../manual/doc.texi both lead to doc as manual name,
as /usr/doc/doc.bidule do.
And later in the proposal only the manual name is used to construct the 
href leading to that manual (when there is nothing in the config file). 
This means that the information embedded in the file path is lost in my 
proposal. I believe this is a non trivial "feature", and maybe some may 
disagree about that.

I am not fully satisfied with that approach, but I thought that ignoring
the path part and keeping only the manual name would be less prone to fail
outside of a peculiar installation. And also that instead of using the path
embedded in the @ref to locate the file, using the config file would be 
better such that only manual names appear in the texinfo source. Maybe there
is a better solution ?

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