Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:30:18 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Tidy and HTML tab spacing Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201211648030.72083@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <4F1B4767.5070105@FreeBSD.org> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201181255210.39534@wonkity.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201181520140.40712@wonkity.com> <4F1B4767.5070105@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012, Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
> On 2012.01.18. 23:49, Warren Block wrote:
>> 5. Don't tidy HTML files at all (suggested as an option by Benedict
>> Reuschling). The unprocessed HTML is ugly, but few people are going
>> to look at it directly. Files that haven't been through tidy are a
>> little larger, about 4% in the case of the Porter's Handbook.
> I also think tidy should be removed. As hrs wrote, new standards should be
> evaluated and probably they are much better. (I think they are.) If there are
> some nits, then we should process it with a custom script or something,
> instead of this crapware.
Tidy does a lot; it would be a lot of work to recreate.
There's a default choice I didn't mention earlier:
0. Leave it alone.
(Maybe this will all change with the DocBook XML changeover. I don't
know when that is supposed to happen, but if it's not too long, this
could be the right way to go.)
Finally, there's one last choice:
6. A pretty good case could be made for using 	 instead of tabs in
the source <programlisting> blocks. The more I think about it, the
more technically-correct that seems. In that case, tidy should be
fine as it is now.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1201211648030.72083>