Re: GDP: LSR and @commonprop

[Valentin Villenave]

2007/12/4, Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> Ok, LSR is now at the stage where we can discuss this.

Happy to read that.

> A brief history:
> About two years ago, we had an extensive collection of neat tricks in
> the directory input/test/.  However, only about ten people in the world
> knew of its existence, so it wasn't really used.  This was a shame,
> since there were some very nice tricks in that collection.

You now have to say "really_cool" instead of "very nice" :)

> My idea now is to avoid all of that discussion by moving *all* of the
> snippets into LSR.  You can see two examples here:

Hmmm. Last time I checked, it was my idea but not yours (yet) :)

However, there's a downside here: LSR is currently *not* meant to be
ever translated in any way. This would be a major regression if we
moved many things from the (localized) docs to the (English-only) LSR.


> "since the snippet already has texinfo code, why not have them
> automatically inserted directly into the compiled manuals"

The point is: snippets descriptions are currently not reliable. some
users use HTML tags, others don't, some users use long detailed
descriptions, while others don't, etc.

As a matter of fact, I'm considering writing Sebastiano to see if it
would be possible (for LSR editors, at least) to input pure Texinfo
code in the snippets descriptions (I suspect this could easily be
done, since the backend is already native texinfo). If we ever
integrated snippets into the documentation, I'd gladly rewrite some
descriptions using texinfo tags for better docs integration.

Regards,
Valentin