GNU bug report logs - #8900
24.0.50; please index mentioned coding systems in Emacs manual

Previous Next

Full log

Message #42 received at 8900 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, 8900 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#8900: 24.0.50;
	please index mentioned coding systems in Emacs manual
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 09:11:29 +0300

> From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> Cc: <larsi <at> gnus.org>, <8900 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:00:01 -0700
> 
> You need detailed doc about *each* coding system before you will index *any* of
> them?

I never said that.  Some of them _are_ indexed: raw-text,
no-conversion, and emacs-internal.  That's because the manual says
something specific about them, unlike the others.

> > Having index entries about something that isn't described
> > is a Bad Thing.
> 
> "Described" is vague here, so it's hard to judge.

Not really.  The following is _not_ a description:

	  For example, the coding system @code{iso-latin-1} has
  variants @code{iso-latin-1-unix}, @code{iso-latin-1-dos} and
  @code{iso-latin-1-mac}.

This mentions iso-latin-1-*, but says nothing at all about them.  The
whole sentence is an explanation of the -dos, -unix, -mac variants of
each coding-system, and uses iso-latin-1-* as an example.  And there's
no other reference to iso-latin-1-* anywhere in the manual.

How hard is it to judge that these symbols are not documented in the
manual?  I say it's obvious.  A reader who wants to know something
about iso-latin-1 will not be wiser after reading this.

> I do indexing for a living.

Then I pity your readers.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.