The CutCodeDown articles have lots of criticism for HTML 5. I supposed there's nothing inherently wrong with building on correctly-coded HTML 4?
One of the problems is that simply saying "HTML 4" is insufficient as there are TWO HTML 4's: Transitional and Strict.
Strict is the "real" HTML 4 implementing all the rules and good practices. Tranny on the other hand is just HTML 3.2 in drag, literally meaning "in transition from 1997 to 1998 practices".
... and since the first line of the site reads:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
It's tucking back Mr. Winky, slapping on theatrical makeup, and putting on the CFM boots for a night on the town... since apparently it's not just transitional, it's also loose.
Though much of that stems from their still using texthtml which as I mentioned is the old outdated and deprecated way of turning tex into markup. It's built into texinfo now and should be handled there.
See:
https://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/The program has been dead for a decade now. Kind of like texinfo itself since I don't know many places that still use said relic of the early 1990's since, well... what are the odds they're actually going to print the documentation.
Structurally there is NOT significant difference between HTML and Tex, excepting that tex is the less accessible of the two in terms of code legibility... so I'm not sure just exactly what texinfo is giving them that HTML does not any time after around 2005.
Admittedly I say the same thing about how people throw base64 at things, a relic of 1970's 6 bit computing!But really if they are so set on texinfo for Christmas only knows what, to turn it into HTML texi2any is what should be used since it's still maintained and updated:
https://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/html_node/Generic-Translator-texi2any.htmlNow, as to the file you linked to.. Perl... what is this 2003?
If this were brought to me by a paying client, I would be asking again just what it is that they think texinfo is giving them that HTML is not, particularly with the goofy and cryptic use of PERL with zero legitimate organization brings to the table. It's an outdated outmoded relic that does little if anything of value compared to HTML any time after 1998.
Because to be frank this cryptic mess without code indentation to make it clear which blocks are which:
@divId{pageHeader}
@heading LilyPond
... music notation for everyone
@divEnd
@c @imageId{cmws,web-clef-g-eight-alpha.png,Catchy Musical Web Snippet}
@imageId{lilylogo,double-lily-modified3,png,LilyPond logo}
@c @im ageId{cmws,web-snippet-alpha.png,Catchy Musical Web Snippet}
@divId{quickSummary}
LilyPond is a music engraving program, devoted to producing the
highest-quality sheet music possible. It brings the aesthetics of
traditionally engraved music to computer printouts. LilyPond is free
software and part of the @uref{https://gnu.org,GNU Project}.
@divClass{align-right}
Read more in our @ref{Introduction}!
@divEnd
@divEnd
is in no way, shape, or form easier to edit, develop, or deal with than:
<section id="LilyPond">
<img
src="pictures/double-lily-modified3.png"
alt="LilyPond logo"
>
<h2>
LilyPond<br>
<small>... music notation for everyone</small>
</h2>
<p>
LilyPond is a music engraving program, devoted to producing the highest-quality sheet music possible. It brings the aesthetics of traditionally engraved music to computer printouts. LilyPond is free software and part of the <a href="https://gnu.org">GNU Project</a>.
</p>
<div class="readMore">
Read more in our <a href="introduction.html">Introduction</a>!
<!-- .readMore --></div>
<!-- #LilyPond --></div>
Which is realistically all that needs to be written... and it's not like the media target attribute can't be used to target print specifically or any other media device. Hence why texinfo SHOULD have died off 10-15 years ago no matter how badly big iron dinosaurs with their derpy emacs editor want to stay relevant. Even with the full words to say what things ARE, it's STILL 50 bytes less code.
Convert it all to html, work on it in HTML, use a server-side language such as php to glue together like components of every page, and use CSS to convert it to each and every format desired like print (which also covers PDF), screen, aural, etc.
Unless they're using texinfo for something completely out of left field, which is actually highly unlikely. It's painfully cryptic, too easy to screw up in, and much like many other *nix fanboy BS was created at a time when keyboards still only had 52 to 64 keys, communications were at an unreliable 150 to 300 baud, systems only had 6 bit character spaces, and companies like DEC, WANG, and WYSE still had relevance.
In case you couldn't guess, I'm not exactly "GNU / FSF" friendly.Really, what is it that texinfo and Perl is giving them that HTML + PHP can't, other than painfully cryptic hard to follow code?