Re: Have you all gone crazy? Was: On being web-friendly and why info must die

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:08:39 -0800
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden, 
>  address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> I switched from the info index (which didn't work for me first
> time) to a search engine (which did).

You switched too soon, without trying with Info the same approach you
did with Web search -- a search for a fixed string.

> Why should I insist on slowing myself down with inferior
> technology?

Because it's not inferior, at least not in this use case.  It has the
same capabilities for this specific use case, and the hits it brings
you are guaranteed to be accurate for the version of the software you
have installed.

You are free to use whatever you like, of course, but I see no basis
for your assertion that using Info before trying the Web is not a good
idea.

>     There are 880
>     nodes in the ELisp manual, out of which 116, including "Time of Day",
>     didn't follow that rule (they do now)
> 
> 
> Thanks, that's undoubtedly an improvement to the manually-maintained
> index, but it underscores a problem with the way we're currently
> using Texinfo.

If anything, it underscores how well we are using it.

> Here's an extract from the current emacs-24
> documentation source:
> 
> 
> * Standard Abbrev Tables::      Abbrev tables used by various major modes.
> ...
> @node Standard Abbrev Tables
> @section Standard Abbrev Tables
> @cindex standard abbrev tables
> ...
> * Standard Abbrev Tables::  Abbrev tables used by various major modes.

> Although this kind of repetition may be needed in the *output* of
> makeinfo, it shouldn't be necessary in its *input*.

It's not always repetition.  That index entry, like any good index
entry, needs a human judgment call.

But if we care we could ask the Texinfo maintainers to add a feature
where each @node contributes to the Concept Index.  Feel free to
report this to them.

> overall it's clearly a mess that gets in the way of real
> improvements, and contributors shouldn't have to put up with this
> sort of thing.

That's an exaggeration, I think.