[pooma-dev] Re: [PATCH] Correct some docs

[Richard Guenther]

Jeffrey D. Oldham wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Jeffrey D. Oldham wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>> This patch corrects hyperrefs of the html documents inside docs/ and
>>>> does some minor improvements (just as I came along).
>>>>
>>>> Ok?
>>>>
>>>> Richard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2004Aug19  Richard Guenther <richard.guenther at uni-tuebingen.de>
>>>>
>>>>    * docs/introduction.html: fix references to POOMA homepage
>>>>    and mailinglist.
>>>>    docs/legal.html: likewise.
>>>>    docs/reading.html: remove defunct links.
>>>>    docs/tut-02.html: minor corrections.
>>>>    docs/tut-04.html: likewise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Yes, please commit this good improvements.  After you commit these
>>> changes, we should probably use the W3C link checker and HTML validity
>>> checker.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Hum.  The documents seem to be not in a good shape wrt conformance.  
>> But I
>> can easily run them through HTML Tidy - manually fixing them will take
>> too much time.
>>
>> Would this be ok?
>>
> I modified the HTML documents in the docs/ subdirectory to achieve HTML 
> 4.0 validity and to also check the links.  I used 
> http://validator.w3.org/ and http://validator.w3.org/checklink for this 
> work.  No major changes were made except four tables are no longer 
> shifted left.  All documents now pass except for links to known missing 
> illustrations (these illustrations have been missing for several years) 
> and incorrect use of <sub>...</sub> in background.html.  I do not know 
> how to revise this <pre><blockquote> section to support <sub> and 
> maintain HTML 4.0 validity.
> 
> I learned that HTML should be created by tools to ensure validity.
> 
> Are these OK to commit to the Pooma CVS repository?

I think these are ok - they cover more stuff than I got with simply
tidy -m, my manual fixes seem to be contained, too.  I'll work on-top
of your changes if necessary.

Thanks for doing the work,

Richard.

> (If you want to use tidy on these after we resolve these proposed 
> changes, that's fine, but it's not essential.  I'd rather ensure all 
> outstanding patches are resolved and the code works correctly.)

Yes, me too.