Re: documentation build problem
On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 06:35:26PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> Richard Hirst (rhirst@linuxcare.com) wrote:
[...]
> > i.e. with dozens of links in the html <head>, not the <body>. These
> > links are not visible with mozilla, but viewing the files with lynx
> > gives you gives screens of links at the top of each file.
> >
> > If you look at the archive for this file, you'll see i386 and ia64 files
> > are very different. For example, ia64 has this at the top of the contents
> > page:
> >
> > [ previous ] [ Contents ] [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ next ]
[...]
>
> Yes, what's going on is a new version of the debiandoc-sgml package which
> introduces several new things (and yes, I'm to blame for all this :-):
>
> - a reorg of the navigation bar to make it easier to move around in the
> document
> - expanding the contents links to make them easier clickable
> - addition of the <links> in the header so browsers that support them can
> make use of it
>
> Unfortunately, the text based browsers 'links' and 'lynx' don't support the
> option to view these latter links optionally, like e.g. Mozilla can. There's
> already a wishlist filed to add an option to debiandoc2html to add these links
> only if indicated. And wishlists have been filed against 'links' and 'lynx'
> to support <link>s.
But changing this now give them very few time to implement it :(
You could at least add an option to debiandoc2html to disable these links,
I guess many people will be annoyed by them.
Moreover, have a look at http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
There are only 2 links:
<link rel="next" href="about.html">
<link rel="contents" href="cover.html#minitoc">
because it does not make sense to make all these links available.
Other pages have 3 links, to previous, next and toc pages.
This looks like the right thing to do.
Denis
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: