Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add hyperref links for MPI symbols throughout the standard #826

Open
devreal opened this issue Jan 16, 2024 · 10 comments
Open

Add hyperref links for MPI symbols throughout the standard #826

devreal opened this issue Jan 16, 2024 · 10 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@devreal
Copy link

devreal commented Jan 16, 2024

Problem

It is hard to navigate through the standard because both the PDF and HTML versions are lacking hyperlinks. By adding hyperlinks to both versions users can jump to the definition of a symbol (function, datatype, error handler) without having to use the document search function.

Proposal

Extend the corresponding LaTeX macros to add a \hypertarget to \*main macros and link to it in the non-main macros (except for skip macros).

Changes to the Text

No changes to the text, except for the cleanup of erroneous macro usage in #825. All other changes are solely in the user-facing macros.

Impact on Implementations

None

Impact on Users

Hyperlinks make users happy.

References and Pull Requests

Initial draft of the hyperref integration: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/954

@devreal devreal self-assigned this Jan 16, 2024
@bkmgit
Copy link

bkmgit commented Jan 16, 2024

Some changes to the workflow maybe needed to generate an HTML version.

@devreal
Copy link
Author

devreal commented Jan 16, 2024

I had seen this HTML version we're hosting but didn't realize that it's MPI 2.2. We should probably update that.

https://www.mpi-forum.org/docs/mpi-2.2/mpi22-report/mpi22-report.htm

@wgropp
Copy link

wgropp commented Jan 16, 2024

There are more recent HTML versions - see the docs page. They aren't perfect; there might be a tool that can better handle the LaTeX in the standard now, but there wasn't the last time I checked (which was probably > 10 years ago).

@devreal
Copy link
Author

devreal commented Jan 17, 2024

Ahh that's right. Somehow Google gave me links to the 2.2 version. I tried to build the html version of the standard (make HTMLVERSION) but I'm missing tohtml and cannot figure out what package that belongs to.

@bkmgit What changes do you think would be needed?

@bkmgit
Copy link

bkmgit commented Jan 17, 2024 via email

@wgropp
Copy link

wgropp commented Jan 17, 2024

tohtml is part of a very old package of tools I used to automate some elements of package development. I'm in the midst of enhancing tohtml to address some of the shortcomings in the 4.1 version.

@bkmgit
Copy link

bkmgit commented Jan 19, 2024 via email

@wgropp
Copy link

wgropp commented Jan 19, 2024

Can you point me at an example of what it should look like? Normally, text is copyrighted, not licensed, though I can see there's a grey area with HTML.

Dark mode is non-trivial, because some more complex LaTeX is currently handled by generating an image directly from the LaTeX, then including that image. But I can also look into this (tohtml dates from long before CSS, and so has a very old-fashioned HTML output).

@bkmgit
Copy link

bkmgit commented Jan 19, 2024

License is for the sowing package. Made a pull request to add MPICH license:
https://bitbucket.org/petsc/pkg-sowing/pull-requests/
Arch package lists GPL, but does not indicate which version and if it is that version only or that version or later:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/sowing/-/blob/main/PKGBUILD
There is no documentation as to what is appropriate distributed with the source package.
Probably relevant evaluators are https://otm.illinois.edu/disclose-protect/open-source-licensing and for Argonne from https://github.com/Argonne-National-Laboratory opensource at anl dot gov

For the standard, probably SPI would hold rights but some agreement would be needed.

@bkmgit
Copy link

bkmgit commented Jan 20, 2024

Created separate issue for document and code licensing #827

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
Status: To Do
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants