makeinfo 4.8 generates non-standard HTML for @emph{..@samp{..}..}

makeinfo 4.8 generates non-standard HTML for @emph{..@samp{..}..}

[Gerald Pfeifer]

In the GCC documentation (gcc/doc/install.texi) we have the following
texinfo snippet

  @emph{You should substitute @samp{i686} in the above command with the 
  appropriate processor for your host.}

makeinfo 4.8 translates this to

  <p><em>You should substitute `<samp></em><span class="samp">i686</span>
  <em></samp>' in the above command with the appropriate processor 
  for your host.</em>

which is not valid HTML 4.01 nor XHTML 1.0 transitional according to 
validator.w3.org.

(The original file is at <http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html>.)

Gerald

Re: makeinfo 4.8 generates non-standard HTML for @emph{..@samp{..}..}

[Karl Berry]

Hi Gerald,

      <p><em>You should substitute `<samp></em><span class="samp">i686</span>
      <em></samp>' in the above command with the appropriate processor 
      for your host.</em>

Thanks for the report, I'll work on fixing that.

karl

Re: makeinfo 4.8 generates non-standard HTML for @emph{..@samp{..}..}

[Gerald Pfeifer]

Hi Karl,

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Karl Berry wrote:
>       <p><em>You should substitute `<samp></em><span class="samp">i686</span>
>       <em></samp>' in the above command with the appropriate processor 
>       for your host.</em>
> Thanks for the report, I'll work on fixing that.

have you had a chance to look into this?  It's certainly not a top
priority issue and I don't want to pressure you, just came across
this again today.

Gerald

Re: makeinfo 4.8 generates non-standard HTML for @emph{..@samp{..}..}

[Karl Berry]

    >       <p><em>You should substitute `<samp></em><span class="samp">i686</span>
    >       <em></samp>' in the above command with the appropriate processor 
    >       for your host.</em>
    > Thanks for the report, I'll work on fixing that.

    have you had a chance to look into this?  

Not yet, but it's again at the top of my Texinfo list due to your
message :).

    It's certainly not a top priority issue 

I'm glad, because my time for Texinfo in general is unfortunately rather
lacking these days :(.

Best,
Karl