From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New .texi file Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:56:29 -0500 (CDT) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200406160256.i5G2uT019583@raven.dms.auburn.edu> References: <200406130118.i5D1I9817614@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <87smcztob4.fsf@mail.jurta.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1087354742 28258 80.91.224.253 (16 Jun 2004 02:59:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:59:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 16 04:58:51 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BaQdX-00081V-00 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:58:51 +0200 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BaQdX-0003AG-00 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:58:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BaQeV-0000ER-Im for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:59:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1BaQdy-0008PI-ON for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:59:18 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1BaQdt-0008N7-Em for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:59:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BaQdt-0008Mx-BI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:59:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [131.204.53.104] (helo=manatee.dms.auburn.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BaQcj-0007W7-6E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:58:01 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.dms.auburn.edu (raven.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.29]) by manatee.dms.auburn.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5G2w0uE020742; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:58:00 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by raven.dms.auburn.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id i5G2uT019583; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:56:29 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: juri@jurta.org In-reply-to: <87smcztob4.fsf@mail.jurta.org> (message from Juri Linkov on Sun, 13 Jun 2004 19:28:31 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:25020 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:25020 Juri Linkov wrote: For example, the Autotype manual should be placed also into this new Emacs-X manual since Autotype is the only manual that doesn't describe a separate package. I personally do not believe so. The idea is that the main source of information about Emacs is the Emacs manual. (Or the Elisp manual for Elisp programmers.) Then comes browsing packages using `C-h p' and browsing user options using Custom. Then any collection of features that logically can be grouped into something large and coherent enough can get their own manual. There are things that are not suitably covered by any of these categories. They are too small to motivate all the extra work one has to do (and extra know-how one may have to acquire) to commit a new manual rather than just add nodes to a pre-existing manual. Also, if one would get too many of such "micro-manuals", then they would also unnecessarily clutter the user's dir file. (A problem that is already bad enough right now.) That is what the new manual is intended for. Sections 1-8 of Autotype essentially cover things related to the skeleton machinery. Sections 9-12 look somewhat out of place, but not too badly. Sections 11-12 refer to `Commentary' sections for more details. Section 10 probably should too. It is not the intended purpose of the new manual to duplicate information obtainable through `C-h p'. Sincerely, Luc.