On Monday, May 27, 2013 21:29:41 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 5/27/13 6:48 PM, Borden wrote:
> > Oh, and another thing: XHTML adopts the XML practice of only defining the lt, gt and amp entities and no others (like nbsp, mdash, accented, or non-Latin characters).
> > 
> > Since Unicode is, by and large, universal, I've read that the recommended practice for including characters not on a standard US keyboard is to copy them from a character map and save the file in a Unicode encoding. I intend to follow this guidance in writing the (x)html.ddoc template.
> > 
> > As such, should I keep the existing 'entity' macros or use the Unicode characters in the DLang spec source files? I imagine that Andrei will immediately comment that .tex files are supposed to be in ASCII. Suggestions?
> 
> The LaTeX configuration won't use your ddoc template. Knock yourself out.

Yes, but he was wondering if he could change the .dd files to use Unicode characters directly instead of macros, which _would_ affect the LaTeX configuration.

- Jonathan M Davis

Yep, and that seems like a bad idea, so I'll just update the macros is the xhtml.ddoc file

On 5/27/13 9:32 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, May 27, 2013 21:29:41 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 5/27/13 6:48 PM, Borden wrote:
>>> Oh, and another thing: XHTML adopts the XML practice of only defining
>>> the lt, gt and amp entities and no others (like nbsp, mdash, accented,
>>> or non-Latin characters).
>>>
>>> Since Unicode is, by and large, universal, I've read that the
>>> recommended practice for including characters not on a standard US
>>> keyboard is to copy them from a character map and save the file in a
>>> Unicode encoding. I intend to follow this guidance in writing the
>>> (x)html.ddoc template.
>>>
>>> As such, should I keep the existing 'entity' macros or use the Unicode
>>> characters in the DLang spec source files? I imagine that Andrei will
>>> immediately comment that .tex files are supposed to be in ASCII.
>>> Suggestions?
>>
>> The LaTeX configuration won't use your ddoc template. Knock yourself out.
>
> Yes, but he was wondering if he could change the .dd files to use Unicode
> characters directly instead of macros, which _would_ affect the LaTeX
> configuration.

Prolly that wouldn't be a good idea. Macros are the traditional level of indirection that solve all problems...

Andrei

On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 02:11:00 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> You may want to wait until https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/271 is in. It systematizes macros a lot and it may offer answers to many of your questions.
>
> Andrei

Professor, what sort of feedback would help get that pull expedited through? I downloaded it, and it compiled for me, but beyond that I don't know what to look for.

On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 02:11:00 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I think it would be great. In particular, an ebook format would be good.
>
> You may want to wait until https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/271 is in. It systematizes macros a lot and it may offer answers to many of your questions.
>
> Andrei

I would still like to work on compiling the DLangSpec into HTML5, but I've noticed that pull request 271 hasn't been touched in over 4 months. Further, I sent in a pull request to move the DLangSpec source files into their own folders and haven't gotten so much as a 'worst pull request ever' in response.

I fully appreciate that people are very busy - including me - so I want to know if there's anything I can do to help things along. At least with respect to pull request 271, is there anything that I can do to help get it merged into master so I can get working on the HTML5 DDoc?

"Borden" <2013@bordenrhodes.com> wrote in message news:qglzffgfawrzjguvttus@forum.dlang.org...
> I would still like to work on compiling the DLangSpec into HTML5, but I've noticed that pull request 271 hasn't been touched in over 4 months. Further, I sent in a pull request to move the DLangSpec source files into their own folders and haven't gotten so much as a 'worst pull request ever' in response.
>
> I fully appreciate that people are very busy - including me - so I want to know if there's anything I can do to help things along. At least with respect to pull request 271, is there anything that I can do to help get it merged into master so I can get working on the HTML5 DDoc?

To be honest, you just have to keep bugging people.  I mostly review compiler pulls, and I am much much more likely to review something that shows up in my inbox than something that sits patiently in the list.  If you make enough noise somebody will eventually reply.

On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 11:33:16 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> To be honest, you just have to keep bugging people.  I mostly review
> compiler pulls, and I am much much more likely to review something that
> shows up in my inbox than something that sits patiently in the list.  If you
> make enough noise somebody will eventually reply.

Sigh, I know. I just don't want to get on anybody's bad side. Maybe I can do that just by keeping this bumped...

Ping! I'm just bumping this thread to see where the status of integrating pull request 271 is and whether there's anything I can do to expedite matters. I've noticed that there are some changes to dlang.org's website source. Are these changes working towards HTML 5 compliance? (or, at least, the part of HTML 5 that probably won't change).

On 7/22/2013 11:15 PM, Borden wrote:
> Ping! I'm just bumping this thread to see where the status of integrating pull
> request 271 is and whether there's anything I can do to expedite matters. I've
> noticed that there are some changes to dlang.org's website source. Are these
> changes working towards HTML 5 compliance? (or, at least, the part of HTML 5
> that probably won't change).

271 is stuck at the moment because it can't be auto-merged.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/271

(BTW, including links to what you're referring to is a helpful practice and makes it much easier for others to weigh in.)