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

[Jeffrey D. Oldham]

Richard Guenther wrote:

> 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.
>
I committed the changes.  Now, it's your turn if you wish.

-- 
Jeffrey D. Oldham
oldham at codesourcery.com