From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:47:35 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87r3wbn8wo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20141205123549.GA29331@thyrsus.com> <2815659.zRQ0WWWeRr@descartes> <20141205175810.GD3120@thyrsus.com> <87lhmlncb1.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <20141205193643.GB5067@thyrsus.com> <87tx19rd1b.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20141205215138.GF7784@thyrsus.com> <54823617.4000406@cs.ucla.edu> <83k325195l.fsf@gnu.org> <5482D94B.2070102@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1417942104 2994 80.91.229.3 (7 Dec 2014 08:48:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 08:48:24 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 07 09:48:17 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XxXVm-0006wY-CP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:48:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57363 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxXVl-00020P-W8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 03:48:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40020) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxXVS-000205-S9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 03:48:00 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxXVM-0004HQ-VE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 03:47:54 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:37975) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxXVM-0004HH-O1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 03:47:48 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XxXVL-0006hJ-LJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:47:47 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f4fd17.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.244.253.23]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:47:47 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f4fd17.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:47:47 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f4fd17.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:aHCIA54T74BMHULu1dHcoXsyrxY= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:179239 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> Anyway, no matter what the reason for not upgrading, in the meantime we're >> stuck with old-technology Texinfo, and this is partly why it might be a good >> idea to think about changing. > > FWIW, while I don't hold Texinfo very dearly in my heart, I have some > real problems with labeling it as nothing else than "old-technology". The first copyright date in texinfo.tex is from 1985. TeX originates from the 70s and still is pervasive for quality batch text typesetting workflows. "Old" alone is not bad. This is the Emacs developer list, isn't it? > There are newer tools, of course, but it's not like they're so much > incredibly better that Texinfo is just "old-technology". Old wine in new wineskins. > CVS is old-technology. And here the inherent limitations are worth ditching it. Particularly the lack of convenient private or offline workflows is a real hurdle. -- David Kastrup