From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gavin Smith <gavinsmith0123@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Any interest in using HTML for locally-installed Texinfo
 documentation?
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 22:30:25 +0100
Message-ID: <20191015213025.GC22658@mintstar>
References: <20190402150245.GA30067@darkstar>
 <256d60e8-0148-1dd3-4c9d-86e14b42060b@bothner.com>
 <20190407162804.GA28500@darkstar.example.net>
 <87k1g4v8dq.fsf@gnu.org>
 <20190413162121.GA28137@darkstar.example.net>
 <CAKPWYQ1KCUnZHGHL6pr49yASHzhyyGXHBMjoYQ8mVhPUjvfBLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <v5s9AtIUZF8fvQpM5b5kt9IW4xXtpSMyJg1KfKrbxVUYrtqDrE9vQTEkT36KBZLlrevfcc-M_fUlGIFesFOG59g7ZBuib46TFQrlmlmrsl0=@protonmail.com>
 <935f0a37-8c59-2877-989c-aa47e6478611@bothner.com>
 <20191015210050.GB22658@mintstar>
 <f3867bb1-355f-3110-5ae8-5ba57a549a17@bothner.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <bug-texinfo-bounces+gnu-bug-texinfo2=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f3867bb1-355f-3110-5ae8-5ba57a549a17@bothner.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-texinfo>,
 <mailto:bug-texinfo-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-texinfo@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-texinfo-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-texinfo>,
 <mailto:bug-texinfo-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-texinfo-bounces+gnu-bug-texinfo2=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "bug-texinfo"
 <bug-texinfo-bounces+gnu-bug-texinfo2=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" <guix-devel@gnu.org>, Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>, P <pronaip@protonmail.com>, Texinfo <bug-texinfo@gnu.org>
List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 02:09:59PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> On 10/15/19 2:00 PM, Gavin Smith wrote:
> 
> > JavaScript should not be necessary if there is DOM access from the C/C++
> > side, as the case with WebKitGTK (although it is not as easy as it could
> > be).  Frames should not be necessary either: for a table of contents
> > side bar, I imagine this would be done as a widget outside of the
> > embedded browser.
> 
> That's ok if you don't mind implementing and maintaining two separate
> implementations, one for online documentation access and one for local documentation.
> I would recommend against that.

I think there should be two different implementations.  Otherwise the 
local documentation reader will likely have a large amount of glue code 
and a confusing and unnecessarily complicated architecture.  Moreover, 
the existing JavaScript code does not deal with multiple manuals at all.