www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Amost perfect

reply "Bob W" <nospam aol.com> writes:
Hi Walter,

if you add one tag to "std_math.html" you'll have
your first and only page which is valid HTML 4.01.

I am talking about the 'dmd.134.zip' docs, not your
web pages, where 'std_math' and 'style.css' look
like they are still the previous versions.

In order to get rid of the last flaw in the new
"std_math.html" you just need to change the
following section from:

    <h1 align=center>std.math</h1>

    <dl>
    <!-- Generated by Ddoc from std\math.d -->

    <dl><dt><big>const real <u>E</u>;

to:

    <h1 align=center>std.math</h1>

    <dl><!-- either 'dd' or 'dt' is required... -->
    <dd><!-- ...before opening the next 'dl' tag. -->
    <!-- Generated by Ddoc from std\math.d -->

    <dl><dt><big>const real <u>E</u>;

and you are done.


Not that this would make a big difference, because
you'd currently get a couple of thousand validation
errors on the rest of your HTML files.

If you are planning to keep the basic layout of the
HTML files, then you'd need about 4 templates to
base on, which are featuring different menus (toc)
but share the same principles.

At this present moment you are using various
methods on different pages to display the same
kind of stuff, which could make maintaining them
a bit time consuming, right?

I am also curious to know if you plan to keep
your 3 XHTML pages, while the rest of them is
HTML?
Sep 29 2005
parent reply "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Bob W" <nospam aol.com> wrote in message
news:dhi8ok$hci$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I am talking about the 'dmd.134.zip' docs, not your
 web pages, where 'std_math' and 'style.css' look
 like they are still the previous versions.


That's because I haven't uploaded the new ones.


 In order to get rid of the last flaw in the new
 "std_math.html" you just need to change the
 following section from:

     <h1 align=center>std.math</h1>

     <dl>
     <!-- Generated by Ddoc from std\math.d -->

     <dl><dt><big>const real <u>E</u>;

 to:

     <h1 align=center>std.math</h1>

     <dl><!-- either 'dd' or 'dt' is required... -->
     <dd><!-- ...before opening the next 'dl' tag. -->
     <!-- Generated by Ddoc from std\math.d -->

     <dl><dt><big>const real <u>E</u>;

 and you are done.


Ok. Didn't know that one must have dd or dt following dl.


 Not that this would make a big difference, because
 you'd currently get a couple of thousand validation
 errors on the rest of your HTML files.


I'm not worried about that, as I plan to replace them all with Ddoc
generated files, which will be correct.


 If you are planning to keep the basic layout of the
 HTML files, then you'd need about 4 templates to
 base on, which are featuring different menus (toc)
 but share the same principles.


Yes.


 At this present moment you are using various
 methods on different pages to display the same
 kind of stuff, which could make maintaining them
 a bit time consuming, right?


Right, but I don't intend to maintain them. I intend to replace them all
with Ddoc.


 I am also curious to know if you plan to keep
 your 3 XHTML pages, while the rest of them is
 HTML?


Those were provided by others here to help me learn what XHTML is all about.

So, at this point, the evil plan is to get Ddoc to generate 100% correct
HTML, then convert the documentation to using Ddoc, and then write Ddoc
template files for XHTML.
Sep 29 2005
next sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:21:57 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:


[snip]

 So, at this point, the evil plan is to get Ddoc to generate 100% correct
 HTML, then convert the documentation to using Ddoc, and then write Ddoc
 template files for XHTML.


Nice plan. Then we can work on the content ;-)

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
30/09/2005 2:58:57 PM
Sep 29 2005
parent "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:1xlehgu6lhkhz.1mlnr3cr86bdd$.dlg 40tude.net...

 On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:21:57 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:


 [snip]

 So, at this point, the evil plan is to get Ddoc to generate 100% correct
 HTML, then convert the documentation to using Ddoc, and then write Ddoc
 template files for XHTML.


 Nice plan. Then we can work on the content ;-)


Mucking about with the formatting on the documentation takes at least half
the time, so I'm hoping that Ddoc will make it much, much easier to generate
good looking documentation.

What also happens is that people will improve a couple of the documentation
pages and send them to me. They are an improvement, but then I'm faced with
editting in all those changes to scores of files. With Ddoc, all they need
to send me is a style sheet or a template file, and voila!
Sep 29 2005
prev sibling parent "Bob W" <nospam aol.com> writes:
 .....
 and you are done.


 Ok. Didn't know that one must have dd or dt following dl.


It is like TABLE. You would not attempt to put any
contents there before using TD. Just that it doesn't
matter much in the case of DL, because most browsers
will probably do what you'd expect them to do. I just
wanted to have mentioned this before Ddoc starts
generating working but illegal markup code.




 Not that this would make a big difference, because
 you'd currently get a couple of thousand validation
 errors on the rest of your HTML files.


 I'm not worried about that, as I plan to replace them all with Ddoc
 generated files, which will be correct.


I am not too concerned about that as well. You are
in good company: Even if you don't change a thing
you will still beat major internet players like
Google, Yahoo and Cnet in terms of HTML conformance
on their home pages.
(Also note: none of them is using XHTML.)




 At this present moment you are using various
 methods on different pages to display the same
 kind of stuff, which could make maintaining them
 a bit time consuming, right?


 Right, but I don't intend to maintain them. I intend
 to replace them all with Ddoc.


Good move anyway, eagerly awaiting the results ...




 I am also curious to know if you plan to keep
 your 3 XHTML pages, while the rest of them is
 HTML?


 Those were provided by others here to help me learn what XHTML is all 
 about.

 So, at this point, the evil plan is to get Ddoc to generate 100% correct
 HTML, then convert the documentation to using Ddoc, and then write Ddoc
 template files for XHTML.


Although I am using XHTML from time to time, I fail to
get fully convinced about its benefits for general apps.
(Some guys in the beforementioned companies - Google,
Yahoo and Cnet, etc. seem to have similar thoughts).
But I would probably still go ahead and try to let Ddoc
generate XHTML (just for reputation rather than functionality).
But if I saw the slightest problem arising I would instantly
revert back to HTML 4.01 Transitional and would feel
safe until 2015 or so.

Just an early warning to Ddoc: XHTML 2.0 (work in progress)
is designed NOT to be backwards compatible to XHTML 1.0
and XHTML 1.1.
Sep 30 2005