View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
Walter wrote:
> Thanks, it's fixed now.
> 
> 
the design by contract link is still dead for me.
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
"Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6kvu0$15ub$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
> > Thanks, it's fixed now.
> >
> >
> the design by contract link is still dead for me.

I just tried it again. It works. I don't know what's happening for you.
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d6kp85$vtc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 5. There are conflicting signs over whether this reformatting was done
> by hand or by an automated script.  On one hand some of the pages have
> either not been reformatted or only partly been reformatted.  On the
> other, it's found its way into the array operations section that you've
> admitted is too ill-defined to implement.

I switched to using a simple macro text preprocessor to generate the pages,
it makes consistent editting a lot easier.

> 6. I'm surprised you didn't seem to think this a good time to look
> through DocComments/DocumentationAmendments in Wiki4D and fix the issues
> raised.  And it would also be sensible some time soon to look through
> Phobos and make sure everything's documented.

Yes, it would be. But one thing at a time.
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
On Fri, 20 May 2005 10:31:00 -0700, Walter wrote:

>> 6. I'm surprised you didn't seem to think this a good time to look
>> through DocComments/DocumentationAmendments in Wiki4D and fix the issues
>> raised.  And it would also be sensible some time soon to look through
>> Phobos and make sure everything's documented.
> 
> Yes, it would be. But one thing at a time.

Walter, don't you think that this is a very good place for you to accept
some 'production' help. You could delegate the documentation support to
some willing helper (or two, or three, ...)  and just leave the
editorial/review work for yourself.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
21/05/2005 3:56:56 AM
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
news:1o3nbpckwteus$.tsuc94u6kel4.dlg@40tude.net...
> Walter, don't you think that this is a very good place for you to accept
> some 'production' help. You could delegate the documentation support to
> some willing helper (or two, or three, ...)  and just leave the
> editorial/review work for yourself.

Nobody likes to do the rather unglamorous and thankless job of documentation
<g>.
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:13:24 -0700, Walter wrote:

> "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
> news:1o3nbpckwteus$.tsuc94u6kel4.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Walter, don't you think that this is a very good place for you to accept
>> some 'production' help. You could delegate the documentation support to
>> some willing helper (or two, or three, ...)  and just leave the
>> editorial/review work for yourself.
> 
> Nobody likes to do the rather unglamorous and thankless job of documentation
> <g>.

I am a Nobody then.

Does this mean you are declining the offer of assistance? Your answer is
(again) ambiguous.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
21/05/2005 5:07:03 AM
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
news:7uexcpoyya2y.1k7t264uje4f6.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:13:24 -0700, Walter wrote:
>
> > "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
> > news:1o3nbpckwteus$.tsuc94u6kel4.dlg@40tude.net...
> >> Walter, don't you think that this is a very good place for you to
accept
> >> some 'production' help. You could delegate the documentation support to
> >> some willing helper (or two, or three, ...)  and just leave the
> >> editorial/review work for yourself.
> >
> > Nobody likes to do the rather unglamorous and thankless job of
documentation
> > <g>.
>
> I am a Nobody then.
>
> Does this mean you are declining the offer of assistance? Your answer is
> (again) ambiguous.

If you're willing to help, then I accept!
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown@simplemachines.org> wrote in message 
news:d6k76l$h34$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Sorry, I should have also mentioned - for the frameset, you'll want to use 
> a different doctype:
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Frameset//EN" 
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-frameset.dtd">
>
> Or:
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN" 
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">
>
> Which, clearly, indicate the document is a frameset.  Transitional and 
> Strict are also available, but if you want to support most browsers (other 
> than Netscape 4.x and below which is nearly impossible to support 
> properly) you'll want Transitional.  Strict is a little to strict for now.
>
> For more information, I suggest:
>
> http://www.w3schools.com/
>
> Not for the tutorials (which are okay), but for the reference.
>
> -[Unknown]


C'mon! The truth is - none is really needed.

We are talking about D reference documentation here.
Not too long ago this would have been plain text, but
HTML helps to improve readability. Whatever features
beyond Netscape 4.x you use here is completely
unnecessary luxury.

Walter has done a great job in designing D and he has
done an equally great job so far in rejecting Javascript
and other advanced features for the D docs (his Google
ads and email obfuscation being an exception).
Therefore Walter's web pages look good, offer excellent
readability, and, most importantly, are loading fast.

I can imagine that lots of people are thinking that
they could do a superior web design job. But I am afraid
that this would be the day when pages are packed with
features, load slowly and are optimized for 1024x768
or less because they are too complicated to allow
the browser to fit them properly on various screen
resolutions.

Therefore I am pretty comfortable with the current
situation: sophisticated D language and simple doc
format.
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
So, it would be your position that the documentation should not be valid 
HTML/CSS/etc., yes?

In other words, if you were taking a test on a scantron - you wouldn't 
bother filling in the WHOLE bubble?  In high school, I worked in the 
Test Office for a semester.  This meant I took all those tests people 
filled in wrong (wrong pencil, unfilled bubbles, etc.) and fixed them - 
because the school wanted them to pass if they got it right, even if 
they made a mistake in taking it.

Not having valid HTML is exactly the same.  There's an importance to 
standards.  For one thing, following them could make the documentation 
markedly more readable with screen readers (for the blind), pdas, 
text-only browsers (like links/lynx/etc.), search engines, etc... but 
it's also correct, plain and simple.

I have done a lot of work for a business services company.  When I hear 
about someone they are talking to to provide a service, one of the first 
things I do is look at their website's HTML.  Good HTML shows me that 
they either know what they're doing, or have put in the effort to hire 
someone who does.  Bad HTML shows me they don't know what they're doing, 
or don't do things the "proper" or by-the-book method.

When I first saw the D website, and its use of frames, etc... I was not 
impressed.  I assumed it was just another wannabe language that wouldn't 
go anywhere.  My brother, however, suggested to me many of the benefits 
it had over C, and that it had been discussed on Slashdot.  This was 
enough to convince me to take the time to look at it once more.

Basically, you're advocating having a shotty sign above the door of your 
office.  I don't mean ugly, I mean one that's falling off.  Having 
invalid HTML matters in more ways than you think, especially to 
programmers like me, who are often a little too concerned about people 
following the letter of the standards.

Using a doctype, using css... these things benefit you.  Even if the 
site looks the same, the HTML will show that it is not from the 1990's.

Because, if the documentation is from the 1990's, what does that mean of 
the language?  And who wants to use a relatively unpopular supposedly 
up-and-coming language from the 1990's?

-[Unknown]
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
In article <d6llmt$1nho$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Bob W says...
>
>> <snip>
>
>
>C'mon! The truth is - none is really needed.
>
>We are talking about D reference documentation here.
>Not too long ago this would have been plain text, but
>HTML helps to improve readability. Whatever features
>beyond Netscape 4.x you use here is completely
>unnecessary luxury.
>
>Walter has done a great job in designing D and he has
>done an equally great job so far in rejecting Javascript
>and other advanced features for the D docs (his Google
>ads and email obfuscation being an exception).
>Therefore Walter's web pages look good, offer excellent
>readability, and, most importantly, are loading fast.
>

I agree up to this point.

>I can imagine that lots of people are thinking that
>they could do a superior web design job. But I am afraid
>that this would be the day when pages are packed with
>features, load slowly and are optimized for 1024x768
>or less because they are too complicated to allow
>the browser to fit them properly on various screen
>resolutions.
>
>Therefore I am pretty comfortable with the current
>situation: sophisticated D language and simple doc
>format.
>

Webpage "design" doesn't inherently include large images, flash and whatnot.
Design differs with your design goals. If you want a sleek, simple, professional
looking web page, you design it that way.

-Nod-
1 2 3 4
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home