Steve Youngs writes:
> * Johann Gunnar Oskarsson <johann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Info is ugly.
>
> I agree. But it is infinitely better than having to fire up some
> bloated fucking web browser just to read plain text.
Well, I've always aimed at a DSO or something for internal reading.
> Oh God! HTbloodyML for docs? As a customisable alternative option,
> sure no problem. As the default, no fucking way!
Well, k, I can live with that.
> > Info does not adapt well to variable width screens. This is mostly
> > the reason why I want something that's more dynamically rendered.
>
> OK, but surely the SXEmacs info parser/reader/whatever could easily be
> made to handle this?
Possibly, but it'll still be more ugly than text rendered html.
> > I do know that info *can* include pictures, and it *is* possible to
> > use ascii art when pictures can't be shown, but I truly feel this can
> > be done better.
> Yes! SXEmacs can display pictures, so info files under SXEmacs should
> display pictures too.
Or the alternative format... :P
> > When it comes to the dir files .... it annoys me a lot that I can't
> > choose between 2 different versions of installed info files, I'll
> > always be reading the one that's first in the info path, no matter
> > where it's added to the actual "dir".
>
> C-u C-h i /path/to/the/file_you_really_want RET
K, but there should be a better way.
> > It is very hard to include some markup like underline, italics, bold
> > and so on, into info, without possible clashes with characters like *,
> > _ and so on (at least, not that I'm aware of).
>
> It is just as hard to do these things no matter what you are using to
> do the rendering on the types of terminals that info was originally
> designed for.
>
> But I agree, if the terminal can handle it, info should display it.
Then we'd need to patch info/replace it to allow such formatting.
Terminals can display underline and italics (at least the ANSI
standard has escape sequences for it).
> > Please note that I like to write docs, and I want some control of the
> > layout, both on graphical and text displays, and I'm not getting that
> > control with info.
> You are not getting _enough_ control.
No, I'm not.
> > In other words, I'd like something like <strong> and <em> in
> > on-line docs.
>
> Have we switched from discussing Texinfo manuals to lisp source doc
> strings now? If we are, eval this in scratch...
But I want the *same* stuff of formatting for the doc strings as
manuals. I want it to feel pretty much the same, when reading docs.
> (defvar test-var nil
> "this is `emphasised' in the doc string.")
> then do C-h a test-var RET, then RET on the var name in the Hyper
> Apropos buffer, look at the doc string.
Yes, this is an emphasiation I'm aware of, but there's only one of
it. I want something that will link me to the <insert some
replacement of info> page with more info.
> I know that this is a _very_ cruddy way of doing it and it doesn't
> work if your just do C-h v, but what I am getting at is that
> emphasising text in lisp source doc strings is almost there
> already.
Almost doesn't feel good enough ;)
[...]
> > The rest of the world has moved to html or other xmls for
> > on-line docs, why do we stay in the dark ages? Becouse of
> > rmsism?
>
> No. Because the rest of the world is stupid. The best way to
> render plain text is with plain text. If our docs and manuals are
> in HTML only, or even primarily in HTML, sooner or later (and I'm
> betting a lot sooner than later) we'll get complaints from people
> saying they can't read our docs in their
> latest-flavour-of-the-month web browser.
Who sais they have to advertised as html files? I mean, kde and gnome
are probably using html, but with their own browsers (I haven't used
gnome since 2000, and then only briefly, and I haven't used kde for
quite a bit, and don't have it now to take a look).
> Now, please understand this, I _do not_ have any problems with us
> distributing HTML docs. I _do_ have a problem with distributing _only_
> HTML docs, or even making HTML docs the primary medium.
K, as a compromize I'll be working on an html renderer module (or
something) that'll provide the same type of navigation as info. The
texinfo files must then be transformed correctly, which'll be quite
different from current texi-->html converters.
> > Preferably, I'd like the same kind of control of doc strings, and
> > render them excacly the same way.
>
> I'd like to be able to have a little more control with doc strings
> too, but probably no where near as much as you. :-)
Hmm, possibly not, but still I want the cross references!
> > And last, but not least, I want something that is easily translated
> > with fallbacks to default language or something.
>
> Ah, so you want Texinfo. Cool.
For doc string too!
If we can work towards a system that allows texinfo generated stuff
for docstring, I'll probably be getting what I want.
Also, as I've said before, I want an inclusion mechanism of doc
strings into the texinfo stuff. This will possibly not be so much a
trouble for the lisp strings, but we *must* completely change the
system for C doc strings.
As a last note, I have *always* aimed at very good text only
(terminal) rendering of on-line help. You may not be aware of it, but
on #emacs I'm known as "that tty guy".
Have fun,
Johann
|