From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Per Bothner Subject: Re: Any interest in using HTML for locally-installed Texinfo documentation? Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:09:59 -0700 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> <935f0a37-8c59-2877-989c-aa47e6478611@bothner.com> <20191015210050.GB22658@mintstar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20191015210050.GB22658@mintstar> Content-Language: en-US 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 , P , =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=c3=a8s?= , "guix-devel@gnu.org" , Texinfo List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org 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. -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/