[latexrefman] split the .html's also?

[Karl Berry]

    cannot ^F to search the entire doc.

That, along with general simplicity, was the big reason I thought
originally it would be better to have only the unsplit version. However,
I see that the .html file has more than doubled in size thanks largely
to your efforts :), so maybe now it is worth providing the split html
too.

    Google favors sites that load fast, 

I have nothing against making the split version and linking to it from
our web site.

My initial thought is that I wouldn't bother trying to include it in the
CTAN upload (-> TL). CTAN is not really set up to serve multifile .html
documents, as far as I've seen. But I have no strong feelings either
way.

    people who are now hosting a collection of .html's might go for a
    replacement collection over one big page (a person can wish).

You dreamer you :). We could explicitly write to the people who are
serving Sheldon Green's pages now. Not fun, but might garner a change.

We could make the split html available via rsync, or as a .tar.gz, or
whatever seems most convenient. (Independent of CTAN, though maybe this
is a reason to include it in the CTAN upload.)

    I also did a very minimal amount of CSS styling.

I somehow didn't notice you had previously created a .css.
Sorry, but I'm mostly unenthused.

- code: should already be getting done in monospace, so why?

- h3 color: no great objection, but I don't see the win.

- a:{link,visited} color: I strongly think it is better not to tinker
with these. It is too easy to end up either with link text that blends
into the background, or is vibrant with it, or visited indistinguishable
from unvisited, etc. It happens all the time on web sites nowadays and
it drives me crazy. (I hate that we do it on tug.org, not done by me,
but seems too late to change it there.)

- hr: the gradient seems too fancy to me. Personally I'd just leave it
alone.

- div.referencetitle: ok, though again, I don't see a big win over
leaving it alone.

- div.referenceinfo: I don't understand what this is for, but in any
case, pixel dimensions aren't be a good idea in my experience.


If we are doing css, the two bits I've actually found useful (because
browsers and/or standards committees are stupid) and included on tug.org
are:

------
BODY {
  margin-top: 1em;
  margin-left: 1em;   /* auto results in two-digit <ol> lost off left */
  margin-right: 1em;
  margin-bottom: 1em;

  /* the idea is to use the whole window, unless it is ridiculously
     wide, probably with too-small fonts, too.  */
  max-width: 64em;
}
------

Thanks,
Karl