On 02/09/2016 10:44 AM, Gavin Smith wrote:
Other problems come to mind:
* Intermanual links: locally installed manuals should be preferred.
The easiest is if you assume the manuals are located in the same "logical"
directory.
By "logical" I mean you could also have a tree of symlinks:
manua
On 02/09/2016 10:30 AM, Gavin Smith wrote:
I think is good to use for the target of a hyperlink, even if
it has been deprecated by HTML5, this was always the way to do it in
earlier versions of HTML. The reason to use the the ID attribute would
be for manipulation with JavaScript functions lik
On 9 February 2016 at 02:52, Per Bothner wrote:
>
>
> On 02/08/2016 12:23 PM, Gavin Smith wrote:
>>
>> There is probably no great barrier to this question, other than taking
>> care of this last 5%. I haven't said what the "HTML-Info" question is,
>> because defining the question is part of the pr
On 9 February 2016 at 02:31, Per Bothner wrote:
>>> and then add the following in the :
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> How do people add this in the ? By typing it in with a text
>> editor? With a browser plugin that adds the line automatically?
>
>
> Of course not.
>
>> That's the kind of specific point that
On 9 February 2016 at 16:29, Per Bothner wrote:
>> Another problem is whether this use of "id" is valid for the version
>> of HTML we target: the files are declared as "HTML 4.01 Transitional",
>> but I read that this use of the "id" tag was only introduced in HTML5?
>
>
> "id" is in HTML 4.01:
>
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 05:37:24AM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> Another problem is whether this use of "id" is valid for the version
> of HTML we target: the files are declared as "HTML 4.01 Transitional",
> but I read that this use of the "id" tag was only introduced in HTML5?
It looks like "id" w
On 02/08/2016 09:37 PM, Gavin Smith wrote:
On 9 February 2016 at 02:11, Per Bothner wrote:
Currently, in html output the node "Foo" generates a
element. In general I think it is better to an id="Foo" attributes.
Reasons that come to mind:
(1) Simpler and less cluttered html, since we can at
On 02/09/2016 02:28 AM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:30:38PM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
I'd drop it in favor of --xhtml,
where --xhtml is the same as --html except strictly XML compatible - with
no required DTDs or entity definitions.
Isn't the html generated already XHTML
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:30:38PM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
>
> I'd drop it in favor of --xhtml,
> where --xhtml is the same as --html except strictly XML compatible - with
> no required DTDs or entity definitions.
Isn't the html generated already XHTML compatible? I remember vaguely
this issue
On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 11:58:29PM +, Karl Berry wrote:
> Evidently most web browsers aren't intended to be used as viewers for
> XML files following arbitrary DTD's.
>
> Evidently. So I think the manual should say this, that the XML output
> cannot be viewed directly in a browser, an
10 matches
Mail list logo
