help-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Major and minor modes


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Major and minor modes
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:05:36 +0300

> From: Jean-Christophe Helary <jean.christophe.helary@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 06:58:07 +0900
> 
> PDF Chapter 2 "Characters, Keys and Commands" has:
> [introductory text about the chapter]
> 2.1 Kinds of User Input
> 2.2 Keys
> 2.3 Keys and Commands
> 
> but the HTML has:
> • 2 Kinds of User Input
> • 3 Keys
> • 4 Keys and Commands

Ah, that...  It's because the manual does this:

  @ifnottex
  @raisesections
  @end ifnottex

So when you later have this:

  @node User Input
  @section Kinds of User Input

The @section gets rendered as a chapter in on-line formats (Info and
HTML), and as a section in printed formats.

IOW, a book requires somewhat different considerations wrt its
sectioning than an on-line version of the manual.

> So in the HTML, PDF sub-chapters are chapters on their own and the 
> introductory text is not present:
> "This chapter explains the character sets used by Emacs for input commands, 
> and the fundamental concepts of keys and commands, whereby Emacs interprets 
> your keyboard and mouse input."

That introductory text is conditionally included only in the printed
formats:

  @iftex
  @chapter Characters, Keys and Commands

    This chapter explains the character sets used by Emacs for input
  commands, and the fundamental concepts of @dfn{keys} and
  @dfn{commands}, whereby Emacs interprets your keyboard and mouse
  input.
  @end iftex

> Then PDF has:
> 32 Emacs Lisp Packages................................. 431
> 33 Customization ...................................... 436
> 34 Dealing with Common Problems ....................... 468
> 
> And that chapter 34 corresponds to HTML
> • 52 Quitting and Aborting
> • 53 Dealing with Emacs Trouble
> • 54 Reporting Bugs
> • 55 Contributing to Emacs Development
> • 56 How To Get Help with GNU Emacs
> 
> That discrepancy is a bit weird.

Is it still weird?



reply via email to

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