Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: makeinfo --no-validate for CHANGES

[David Kastrup]

Reiner Steib <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, May 31 2006, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Reiner Steib <address@hidden> writes:
>>> ,----[ CHANGES ]
>>> |    * The LaTeX tool bar is now enabled by default.  See *Note Running
>>> |      TeX and friends::.
>>> `----
>>
>> But the latter makes no sense in plain text.  
>
> IMHO it's better then no reference at all in the plain text output.

And it is worse than a hand-written human-understandable reference.

> We do the same in No Gnus for GNUS-NEWS[1] since more than 2 years
> and no user complained.  So it seems the users understand that these
> are references to the manual(s) or they don't read GNUS-NEWS. ;-)

Or they just ignore stuff that seems to make no sense.

>> We don't want junk in CHANGES.  So I still maintain that
>> no-validate seems like a bad idea, since it stops us from seeing
>> problems.
>
> I don't see that --no-validate stops us from seeing problems,
> because we will see problems (if any) when creating the info files.

I consider a "Note" referring to some node in an completely
unspecified manual a problem.

> But as we seem to disagree, I will add "@ifclear rawfile" as you
> suggested and remove --no-validate.

Thanks.  As you can see in this (and other files), there has been
quite a bit of work invested for keeping these sort of unspecified
cross references out of the plain text versions.  It would not make
sense to change this practice for a single new note without a previous
discussion, even if I happened to be alone with my opinion.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum