Re: Proposal: Include css for docs in emacs repo

[Daniel Radetsky]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 03:02:30PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> How do you get this?  Is that by running the scripts in the admin/
> directory, like make-manuals?

Yes, that's what I did.

> For the latter purpose, you are supposed to say
>
>   $ cd doc/emacs && make emacs.html HTML_OPTS='--html --split=node'

Thanks, although I didn't realize that. I spent some time
looking around for how to do it, but didn't figure it out.
Does that mean I'm not very smart, or that the process is
not very intuitive, or some combination of both? Hard to
say.

> I don't see a need to include this in the Emacs Git repository.  The
> stuff related to the Web documentation is maintained in a separate
> repository for a reason.

I'm not sure I'd call it a "need" but the reason is that so
that as a user, I can build the html docs for personal use
without having to do weird stuff like manually downloading
the css from gnu.org. Also, as somebody who is working on
the docs, it's desirable to be able to build the docs
exactly as they would appear to a user on gnu.org.
Otherwise, I'll end up doing some kind of
works-on-my-machine hack to get the css into my local build,
and then the docs go up for regular users and look
incorrect.

> The way these scripts are used is described in admin/make-tarball.txt.
> You will see there that the produced HTML manuals are moved to the
> separate webpages repository and sent upstream from there; the file
> manual.css is part of that repository.  So there's no need to mix this
> with the Emacs sources, because Emacs users are not supposed to
> produce manuals in the format used for the GNU Documentation web site.

Sure, but some emacs users don't play by your rules, maaaaan
[takes a hit of joint].

I suppose it would work to just download style.css from the
repo when I wanted to make a user-type (as opposed to
admin-type) html docs build. We could also include a custom
version of manual.css (but not style.css) for this use
intended to just point to a relative path. rather than an
absolute path. Would some version of this be acceptable?

--dmr