Re: [Sylvain Beucler] Re: [Savannah-hackers] posting news in absence of project maintainer

[Dave Love]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     Well, I don't know what you expect to happen to W3, but there doesn't
>     seem to be a way of making any sort of official release of it (not
>     that there's anyone to work on it these days as far as I know, and
>     things like image support are currently broken).  I assume Emacspeak
>     still relies on it.
>
> Is emacs-w3m a good replacement?  Why not just everyone switch to that?

It's not the same thing, is it?  I don't know, but I doubt it supports
speech CSS (for Emacspeak) and it didn't DTRT with multilingual text
last I knew.  There are definite advantages to being able to format
HTML in a buffer with the normal Emacs faces, amongst other things.

You have to tackle the same sort of issues somehow if you want Emacs
to do WYSIWYG sort of stuff, though I wasn't convinced by how Bill
proposed to develop W3.  (I'd hope that with Emacs you can avoid `what
you see is all you get', by the way.)  Admittedly it's easier to deal
with a properly-defined format rather than the `HTML' mess on the web,
and it may not be worth the effort to work on W3.  Presumably it needs
a policy decision.

Note that W3 can support a superset of Info features with Texinfo
rendered to HTML.  At least, it could when I worked on it, and doing
that even suggested useful Texinfo extensions.  I think necessary
features I put in the original Texinfo HTML output were junked, and
the W3 support I added was in an old codebase, but it wasn't much
work.