I have prepared a full set of 0.133 HTML doc files where
a couple of things are corrected:

- style sheet "style.css" works now with all Phobos doc files
- obsolete/duplicate color scheme removed from some files
- some bgcolor parameters replaced with corresponding
   class parameter to correspond to "style.css" definitions
- unused parts of stylesheet marked for deletion
- two ancient and unused files detected, suggest deletion
- style.css for general D doc and Phobos doc is identical
- trailing (and optionally leading) whitespace removed

Contents of course have remained untouched - and
most of the extra HTML flaws as well     ;-)

If there is any use for these files, please let me know.

In article <dh7fnm$1vt$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Bob W says...
>
>
>I have prepared a full set of 0.133 HTML doc files where
>a couple of things are corrected:
>
>- style sheet "style.css" works now with all Phobos doc files
>- obsolete/duplicate color scheme removed from some files
>- some bgcolor parameters replaced with corresponding
>   class parameter to correspond to "style.css" definitions
>- unused parts of stylesheet marked for deletion
>- two ancient and unused files detected, suggest deletion
>- style.css for general D doc and Phobos doc is identical
>- trailing (and optionally leading) whitespace removed
>
>Contents of course have remained untouched - and
>most of the extra HTML flaws as well     ;-)
>
>If there is any use for these files, please let me know.

Sounds interesting. If you upload it somewhere, I'll bet someone would look at it. ;)

jcc7

I share Calvarese's opinion. :)

-- 
...........
Dejan Lekic
  http://dejan.lekic.org

Ok, it is (almost) on its way.


1) In the meanwhile I've found another flaw
which will be fixed:
<table> and <pre> tags are wrongly interleaved
on some pages.


2) The w3 Validator keeps complaining about the
D web pages. I'll have a look at the index page
(49 validation errors) and might supply it as well
in proper XHTML format. (But don't expect me to
do all the other pages, it is hopeless!)


3) Before I do that I need a round of golf   :-)
If I shoot a 63 I'll join the PGA Tour, otherwise
you'll get that HTML stuff uploaded.

The package was on its way, but the "news.digitalmars.com"
server did not like its size (~ 0.5MB).

Any ideas?

"Bob W" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message news:dh8med$12jd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Ok, it is (almost) on its way.
>
>
> 1) In the meanwhile I've found another flaw
> which will be fixed:
> <table> and <pre> tags are wrongly interleaved
> on some pages.
>
>
> 2) The w3 Validator keeps complaining about the
> D web pages. I'll have a look at the index page
> (49 validation errors) and might supply it as well
> in proper XHTML format. (But don't expect me to
> do all the other pages, it is hopeless!)

At the moment, I'm converting the Phobos documentation to using Ddoc. So it'd be a waste of time working on those pages. But I am also interested in correcting any validation problems in Ddoc output, so if you could look at std_math.html, which is Ddoc generated, and let me know if there are any problems, I can get at least those fixed once and for all by fixing Ddoc.

"Bob W" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message news:dhafpa$2k17$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> The package was on its way, but the "news.digitalmars.com"
> server did not like its size (~ 0.5MB).
>
> Any ideas?

The newsgroups aren't the right place to put large attachments (they make navigating the newsgroups a real pain for dialup users). You can email them to me, and to J C and Dejan.

> At the moment, I'm converting the Phobos documentation to using Ddoc. So it'd be a waste of time working on those pages.

Time is already wasted, so my page conversions might still be of moderate value for future doc-page-design-reference.


> But I am also interested in
> correcting any validation problems in Ddoc output, so if you could look at
> std_math.html, which is Ddoc generated, and let me know if there are any
> problems, I can get at least those fixed once and for all by fixing Ddoc.

Of course there are problems:

Failed validation: 39 errors (Markup Validation Service 0.7.0) Address:  http://www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos/std_math.html


But the good news is that I have fixed them all:


I have attached a valid HTML Transitional version of "std_math.html". Please make sure to use the slightly modified stylesheet "style.css" too. It is required for the new version of "std_math.html" to display like the original V0.133 version and it will not affect your other pages.

Please read my remarks below. You might further wish to check upon the changes made in the HTML source. They are marked with HTML comments containing "@@@", so one can easily search for them.



"std_math.html" Remarks:

- This is one of the files which is using a mix of CR/LF and
  LF line termination. I suggest using CR/LF because Unix people
  are mostly comfortable with that as opposed to Windows users
  which are frequently using Notepad as their default text
  viewing application. If I remember correctly at least one of
  the www-related RFCs seems to favour using CR/LF over LF.

- You should change <body 'bgcolor="#FFFFFF">' to '<body>'
  otherwise you are overriding your own stylesheet definitions.

- Using <font face="Arial, Helvetica,sans-serif"> is not a good
  idea to use at the beginnig of a complex document. It will
  almost never work as intended. Your stylesheet "style.css"
  takes care about this feature anyway, so this <font..> item
  is obsolete.

- '<font color=red>....</font>' is widely used in your files.
  The color parameter is deprecated. You might want to use
  '<span style="color:red">....</span>' instead.

- Since you are using stylesheets you might want to avoid the
  'bgcolor' parameter in your HTML files. If you feel the urge to
  make your docs prettier, you just change about 4 characters
  in the stylesheet. Otherwise it is more like a search/replace
  action on ALL pages involved and quite a waste of time.

  Example: there was an attempt in your style sheets to define
  the background color of the menu (toc) on the left side of the
  pages. This obviously never worked. But you can easily get it
  working - just change the respective <td..> tag:
    from      <td valign="top" bgcolor="#eeeeee" nowrap>
    to        <td valign="top" class="toc" nowrap>

  The required stylesheet definition would be something like:
     td.toc { background-color:#eeeeee; }

  I have actually taken care of this already - just use the
  new "style.css" supplied together with the validated version
  of "std_math.html".

- Ddoc seems to generate quite a lot of blank characters and extra
  lines without necessarily improving the readability of the document's
  source. You probably do not want to get doc pages overly obese and
  thus slow the loading of documentation web pages of a potentially
  fast compiler, do you?

- The following <p> </p> tags are not allowed here:
        <dl>
        <!-- Generated by DMD from std\math.d -->

        <p> </p>

        <dl>
  w3.org expects you to use something like a <dd> tag here.
  The same thing applies for the second <dl> tag.

- Another <p>..</p> problem arises when it is attempted to put
  these tags around tables. Upon encountering a <table> tag the
  opening <p> tag is closed and the closing </p> tag after the
  table is regarded a stray item. Not that this would create
  a browser hickup, but w3.org does not regard it as valid
  HTML coding scheme.

  They also do not want you to put <br> and <pre> tags inside a
  <p>..</p> section for a similar reason. In some cases the
  use of <br> instead of the <p> tag would simplify a few things
  anyway, because you don't need any closing tags. In some cases
  it can also be considered omitting the </p> closing tag (which
  is optional), because <p> closes automatically upon encounter
  of several tags including the next <p> tag anyway.

- Another annoyance is that <sup> tags inside <pre> sections are
  not allowed, even though browsers will most likely perform the
  intended actions. A workaround in order to get valid HTML is
  to use <span style="vertical-align:super;font-size:smaller">
  instead of the <sup> tag. Sometimes it is hard to understand
  why w3.org wants our keyboards to wear down quickly....

>
> The newsgroups aren't the right place to put large attachments (they make
> navigating the newsgroups a real pain for dialup users). You can email
> them
> to me, and to J C and Dejan.
>

Got it.

Just wondering who of you 3 guys has deleted
'strip' and 'stripr' from the std_string docs.
Was still there in V0.132 but is missing in V0.133.

I suggest we just blame Ddoc for that, right?

In article <dhbkgv$2i4m$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Bob W says...
>
>
>>
>> The newsgroups aren't the right place to put large attachments (they make
>> navigating the newsgroups a real pain for dialup users). You can email
>> them
>> to me, and to J C and Dejan.
>>
>
>Got it.
>
>Just wondering who of you 3 guys has deleted
>'strip' and 'stripr' from the std_string docs.
>Was still there in V0.132 but is missing in V0.133.

It's not my fault. Walter (now with the help of his pal Ddoc) is the one who creates and maintains the official documentation.

I'm just curious what your corrections look like.

>I suggest we just blame Ddoc for that, right?

Sounds like a plan to me. ;)

jcc7