From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tomas Hlavaty Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Variable pitch mode line Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 22:24:06 +0100 Message-ID: <87r1a3aubt.fsf@logand.com> References: <87zgosdbo1.fsf@gnus.org> <86mtkszhnq.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87o858e5r2.fsf@gnu.org> <86fsqjcqd8.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87zgorawar.fsf@logand.com> <8B7890FE-9DFB-4282-8391-955032220234@gmail.com> <87wnjvavm2.fsf@logand.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="4861"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Tassilo Horn , Lars Ingebrigtsen , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Juri Linkov To: Yuan Fu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 23 22:32:23 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n0VhG-000141-VM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 22:32:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35656 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n0VhF-0007vi-SB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 16:32:21 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40240) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n0VZN-0003Lo-Hx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 16:24:13 -0500 Original-Received: from logand.com ([37.48.87.44]:49612) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n0VZK-0000CQ-Sq; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 16:24:13 -0500 Original-Received: by logand.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5857119EC74; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 22:24:08 +0100 (CET) X-Mailer: emacs 27.2 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=37.48.87.44; envelope-from=tom@logand.com; helo=logand.com X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:283046 Archived-At: On Thu 23 Dec 2021 at 13:00, Yuan Fu wrote: >> On Dec 23, 2021, at 12:56 PM, Tomas Hlavaty wrote: >> On Thu 23 Dec 2021 at 12:51, Yuan Fu wrote: >>> I=E2=80=99ve tried that. Info files are not complex, but they can=E2=80= =99t be >>> reliably parsed 100% of the time. My code works for like 95% of the >>> nodes, but there are always some corner cases where it breaks. >>=20 >> Why doesn't texinfo html output suffer from this problem? > > HTML are structured, where as Info is more like plain text. Just to > give an example, in an info file, four spaces indent text could be a > code block, or just an indented paragraph, there is no way telling > them apart. In HTML, code is wrapped in (or maybe 
),
> paragraphs are wrapped in 
.

Sorry for not being clearer.
The question is not about the difference between info and html.

The question is: why does your info to html conversion attempt work in
95% cases but textinfos info to html conversion work in 100% cases?