From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pronaip Subject: Re: Any interest in using HTML for locally-installed Texinfo documentation? Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 19:25:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87a7h8u4r4.fsf@gnu.org> <20190402150245.GA30067@darkstar> <256d60e8-0148-1dd3-4c9d-86e14b42060b@bothner.com> <20190407162804.GA28500@darkstar.example.net> <87k1g4v8dq.fsf@gnu.org> <20190413162121.GA28137@darkstar.example.net> Reply-To: Pronaip Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190413162121.GA28137@darkstar.example.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-texinfo-bounces+gnu-bug-texinfo2=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-texinfo" To: Gavin Smith Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" , =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= , Texinfo List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org Not directly connected, but have yall seen how rust packages its documentat= ion? Personally I am REALLY not a fan of everything running in a separate b= rowser, one browser is more than enough. But as long as there is one browse= r, why not generate a searchable index that uses JS the way Rust did it? And if people can't run JS, they can just grep through the folder with all = the HTML files.