Re: Correspondence between web-pages and Info-pages

[Kelly Dean]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Does this problem need to be solved?
>
> No it doesn't.

You're right, assuming only one format will be used, and apparently that's the 
consensus.

> And the reason has nothing to do with the format.

True. But my proposal to use redirection to handle multiple formats had nothing 
to do with the format, but only with the _quantity_ of formats for which URL 
syntax would be used. I thought that quantity would be two, but the consensus 
appears to be one. My proposal for redirection is only useful if the quantity 
is greater than one.

My proposal _also_ happened to include a way to specify the Info file that 
contains a page, to handle the usual case of multiple Info pages per file 
(unlike for HTML, which normally has each page in a separate file), because I 
assumed that Info would be one of the formats used, but that's a separate issue 
from using redirection to handle multiple formats.

> we just want to define URLs which are 100% equivalent
> in meaning to "(<FILE>)<NODE>".  The format associated is
> 100% unrelated.
>
> I repeat: this discussion of using URL names for manual node references
> has nothing to do with the format of those manuals.

Agreed.