May 20, 2005
Walter wrote:
> Thanks, it's fixed now.
> 
> 
the design by contract link is still dead for me.
May 20, 2005
"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
"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
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
"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
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
"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
"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
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
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