Hello On 25 February 2013 16:34, Subhan Tindall wrote: > I noticed you left out @inforef, was that by design? It actually does > behave quite differently than other members of the @*ref family, and > the more arguments it gets the more different it looks IE Here's an > example with a full 5 arguments: > REF *note Arg2: (Arg4)Lore Ipsum. > INFOREF *note Arg2: (Arg3)Lore Ipsum Arg4, Arg5 I omitted @inforef, @uref, @url @email by design because they are external links in an org file and can be processed differently. Org Links only have 2 arguments at most (destination and description) so the additional arguments are skipped as well. Info links are format: [[info::][description] or [[info:#][description]] so can provide the 3 arguments by splitting between file and node. Regards > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Jonathan Leech-Pepin > wrote: > > (Here are the attached files, forgot to add them) > > > > > > On 25 February 2013 15:24, Jonathan Leech-Pepin > > wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> On 25 February 2013 14:01, Subhan Tindall < > subhan.tindall@rentrakmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> The point being that compiling .texinfo source into an Info file > >>> treats references differently. For example: > >>> (@pxref{my_node_name}). will compile just fine. > >>> (@ref{my_node_name}). will not. > >> > >> > >> Both work perfectly fine for me. > >> makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 5.0 > >> > >>> > >>> There are also differences in case > >>> (see v. See, note v. Note), and differences in output by ref type > >>> depending on target output of file (info, DVI, HTML,...). For example, > >>> @pxref generates different punctuation for typeset v. info files, @ref > >>> does not generate a 'See ' in printed material while @xref does, etc. > >>> > >>> Although the differences are subtle, they really are not equivalent > >>> and should not be treated as such. > >> > >> > >> With a slight amount of work on the user's part, they can be made > >> functionally equivalent on export. > >> > >> Using the two attached minimal .texi files (good-ref.texi is using > >> @xref/@pxref as is preferred while ref.texi is using @ref with > >> appropriate See/see added in the text) and disregarding filename > >> differences (since they are noted in the info output) I get the > >> following differences: > >> > >> > makeinfo --html --no-split good-ref.texi ref.texi > >> 0 Diffs > >> > >> > makeinfo --docbook --no-split good-ref.texi ref.texi > >> Filename ID appears in diff > >> > >> > makeinfo --xml --no-split good-ref.texi ref.texi > >> Filename difference. > >> > >> Links are different since TexinfoML does still distinguish xref/pxref > >> and ref in how they create the links. > >> > >> > makeinfo --no-split good-ref.texi ref.texi > >> > >> The info file does show the expected differences between the two > >> documents, notably that the "@xref{}" becomes "*Note" while the > >> equivalent "See @ref{}" becomes "See *note" with @pxref{}->*note vs > >> see @ref{} -> see *note. > >> > >> However once they are viewed within the *info* buffer (C-u C-h i > >> good-ref.info/ref-only.info) the lines in question are visually > >> identical since *Note becomes "See" and *note becomes "see" if there > >> is not already "see" present. > >> > >> I will not disagree that @ref, @pxref and @xref are subtly different, > >> however with slight user intervention @ref can be used in the same > >> above locations by simply replacing: > >> > >> @xref{} -> "See @ref{}" > >> @pxref{} -> "see @ref{}" > >> > >> I had to compare these possible outcomes when working on the texinfo > >> exporter. Since links are parsed before being included in their > >> paragraphs, I did not have a way to obtain context and therefore > >> attempt to guess (and be successful) at which type of reference was > >> intended by a link in Org. Restricting it to @ref{} in all cases, > >> even if it added a slight burden to the user (4 additional characters > >> to type in Org) if they wanted to emulate @xref or @pxref was in my > >> opinion the best choice. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> -- > >> Jon > >> > >> [...] > >> > > > > > > -- > Subhan Michael Tindall | Software Developer > | smt@rentrakmail.com > RENTRAK | www.rentrak.com | NASDAQ: RENT >