From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21986 invoked by alias); 21 May 2015 11:54:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 35251 Received: (qmail 11408 invoked from network); 21 May 2015 11:54:05 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Biglobe-Sender: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: texi2html vs texi2any/makeinfo From: "Jun T." In-Reply-To: <20150520175319.GX24979@sym.noone.org> Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 20:13:54 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <32342C3E-F511-423D-803D-15CCA1C2E41A@kba.biglobe.ne.jp> References: <20150520175319.GX24979@sym.noone.org> To: "zsh-workers@zsh.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-Biglobe-Spnum: 55979 If texinfo-4.x is in use, I think 'makeinfo --html' can not be used as a replacement of texi2html. With texinfo-5.x, 'texi2any --html' works but the output is somewhat different from that produced by texi2html. 'texi2any -c TEXI2HTML=1' is *almost* compatible with texi2html. For those who are not yet using texinfo-5.x, I temporarily uploaded the html files produced by 'texi2any -c TEXI2HTML=1' and 'texi2html' to the following url for comparison: http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~takimoto/zsh-doc/ I will patch configure.ac so that 'texi2any -c TEXI2HTML=1' is used if texi2any is found (texi2any is new in texinfo-5), and texi2html otherwise. Is this OK? Jun