On 5/2/14, 6:13 AM, Gilles wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2014 01:48:28 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 5/1/14, 7:20 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>> Phil, I don't know who was telling people Javadoc is XML. I
>>> never heard of
>>> that.
>>
>> Well, could be just be personal ignorance, but the practice of
>>
This is a paragraph.
is useless
Gary
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Phil, I don't know who was telling people Javadoc is XML. I never heard of
> that. AFAIK, it has always been HTML but the Javadoc parser didn't care to
> enforce it. Now it's enforcing it so the only
On Fri, 02 May 2014 01:48:28 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 5/1/14, 7:20 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
Phil, I don't know who was telling people Javadoc is XML. I never
heard of
that.
Well, could be just be personal ignorance, but the practice of
closing tags in commons javadoc goes back to at least
On 5/1/14, 7:20 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Phil, I don't know who was telling people Javadoc is XML. I never heard of
> that.
Well, could be just be personal ignorance, but the practice of
closing tags in commons javadoc goes back to at least 2002. You can
see it in the [lang] Developer Guide (c
Phil, I don't know who was telling people Javadoc is XML. I never heard of
that. AFAIK, it has always been HTML but the Javadoc parser didn't care to
enforce it. Now it's enforcing it so the only "good" Javadoc is HTML as it
always was. If anyone wants to show me Sun saying Javadoc was XML, I'll
gl
On 5/1/14, 2:31 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Gilles,
>
> Javadoc is not XHTML but HTML... and not just HTML, but an HTML fragment.
> Documentation writers need to remember that their content is being placed
> within a bigger document so correct tag usage is important to get
> predictable results.
>
>
On Fri, 2 May 2014 00:56:43 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Am Fri, 02 May 2014 00:49:53 +0200
schrieb Gilles :
In a context where people are fairly likely write documentation
referring to generics, it's quite short-sighted to impose rules that
lead to e.g. "List"
IMO, that counts as _not_
On Thu, 1 May 2014 17:12:13 -0500, Paul Benedict wrote:
"Correct tag usage" for JavaDoc is properly formed HTML. HTML does
not have
self-closing tags -- XHTML does. So if you want to have a proper HTML
document, you don't use self-closing tags.
By the way, HTML isn't legacy. HTML continues to e
Am Fri, 02 May 2014 00:49:53 +0200
schrieb Gilles :
> In a context where people are fairly likely write documentation
> referring to generics, it's quite short-sighted to impose rules that
> lead to e.g. "List"
> IMO, that counts as _not_ readable.
You can use {@literal List} which is a bi
On Fri, 02 May 2014 00:23:33 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 01/05/2014 22:49, Thomas Neidhart a écrit :
* escape angle brackets (<, >) with the corresponding HTML entities
Actually you only need to escape '<', that may help a bit with the
readability.
In a context where people are fairly
Le 01/05/2014 22:49, Thomas Neidhart a écrit :
> * escape angle brackets (<, >) with the corresponding HTML entities
Actually you only need to escape '<', that may help a bit with the
readability.
Emmanuel Bourg
-
To unsubscr
"Correct tag usage" for JavaDoc is properly formed HTML. HTML does not have
self-closing tags -- XHTML does. So if you want to have a proper HTML
document, you don't use self-closing tags.
By the way, HTML isn't legacy. HTML continues to evolve but XHTML is a
whole different beast. XML (also XHTML
On Thu, 1 May 2014 16:31:13 -0500, Paul Benedict wrote:
Gilles,
Javadoc is not XHTML but HTML... and not just HTML, but an HTML
fragment.
Documentation writers need to remember that their content is being
placed
within a bigger document so correct tag usage is important to get
predictable res
Gilles,
Javadoc is not XHTML but HTML... and not just HTML, but an HTML fragment.
Documentation writers need to remember that their content is being placed
within a bigger document so correct tag usage is important to get
predictable results.
I think all Math committers will find this thread abou
On Thu, 01 May 2014 22:49:58 +0200, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 05/01/2014 10:31 PM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
I don't like most of the changes performed on the Javadoc; most of
them
are going in the wrong direction IMHO, the most severe being the use
of
HTML "entities" rather than using MathJax.[1]
On 05/01/2014 10:31 PM, Gilles wrote:
> Hi.
>
>
> I don't like most of the changes performed on the Javadoc; most of them
> are going in the wrong direction IMHO, the most severe being the use of
> HTML "entities" rather than using MathJax.[1]
well, this does not really come as a surprise.
But
Hi.
I don't like most of the changes performed on the Javadoc; most of them
are going in the wrong direction IMHO, the most severe being the use of
HTML "entities" rather than using MathJax.[1]
Last time I checked W3C was trying to make HTML a valid XML language;
now from what I read in this co
17 matches
Mail list logo
