[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Texinfo help, please

From: Jean-Charles Malahieude
Subject: Re: Texinfo help, please
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:29:51 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1

Le 13/07/2012 10:23, Phil Holmes disait :
----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival"

Anyway, my current understanding is that there are three realistic

----------- linewidth ------
from    some     kind     of
----------- linewidth ------

manually insert a @* before every @file{} in the docs which would
produce an overfull hbox, to force a linebreak.
(I reject the option of breaking within a filename)

manually reword any sentence including a @file{} which would
produce an overfull hbox.

Phil's patch currently does #2 and #3.  I am not fond of those
options, since it means that we need to take extra care when
writing or editing docs.  I would rather see #1.

Thoughts, objections?

- Graham

I've just checked and in total I added 4 @* forced linebreak entries -
all of them in pure lists of filenames.  I believe the output in the NR
in all these cases is infinitely better than it was, and considerably
better than right-justified - I've effectively left-justified the lists,
that's all.

As for how hard doing this would make for future authors.  1) It's
unlikely they'll need to do it.  I've done it twice in over 800 pages.
2) A simple instruction in the CG to check any change you make, and if
you've got non-breaking text consider a line break would also fix it.

As for the re-word - it wasn't perfect before and it's not perfect now.
Both express(ed) the intent without problem.

My suggestion - unless there are _real_ problems with my patch (and
there aren't) let's start focusing on other shitty bits of
documentation now that I've fixed this shitty element of the NR.
There's no problem with accepting this patch and then, if anyone finds
it a real problem, making changes in the future for example, improving
how filenames are handled and deleting the 4 instances of forced line

I just had a look at the French version (random pages), and I agree that it looks ugly more than sometimes. Rewording is naturally done with translations, but I will have to reword many rewordings in order to deliver something more "visually fluent"...

I think that most of these bad presentations are due to the fact that proofreading is done with the HTML version. We should then advocate that the "final draft" before pushing a patch that touches any part of the documentation, should be checked with the PDF version of the concerned manual.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]