On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 06:42:21 GMT, Yoshiki Sato <ysato...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclint/Checker.java line
>> 710:
>>
>>> 708:
>>> 709:
>>> 710: private boolean checkAnchor(String name) {
>>
>> I was going to let it slide for this round of cleanup, but if you're editing
>> this file again (see comment on line 736) it might be worth changing the use
>> of `anchor` to `id`. `anchor` is a term that was more appropriate in the
>> days before the `id` attribute, when we used `<a name="...">`. This is an
>> optional suggestion. It might equally be worth focussing on the must-fix
>> items, and postpone this cleanup for later.
>
> I understand. But is it really no problem to be done in part of the cleanup
> of doclint?
> Looking at the classes in jdk/javadoc/internal/doclint, the term
> `(anchor|Anchor)` looks like only used in Checker.java and resource files.
> But a lot of other files, for instance in jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets, use
> this term to refer to the `id` or `name` attribute. I would be fine if it is
> supposed to be done in each cleanup in the future.
If we would apply similar changing to doclint.properties, what you are thinking
is like below right?
-dc.anchor.already.defined = anchor already defined: "{0}"
-dc.anchor.value.missing = no value given for anchor
+dc.id.already.defined = attribute "id" already defined: "{0}"
+dc.id.value.missing = no value given for attribute "id"
-dc.invalid.anchor = invalid name for anchor: "{0}"
-dc.invalid.id = invalid name for attribute "id": "{0}"
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/893
