On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 11:28:06 GMT, Prasanta Sadhukhan <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> If `ShellFolder` remains mentioned, I'd rather use
>> `<code>ShellFolder</code>` as it was done originally.
>>
>> I guess Sergey challenged the fact of referencing `ShellFolder`. The fact
>> that it could be `ShellFolder` rather than `File` is an implementation
>> detail. Can we drop that from the spec?
>>
>> On the other hand, `ShellFolder` class, even though it's not a public API,
>> is mentioned in quite a few methods in `FileSystemView`.
>>
>> I don't have a strong opinion here. Perhaps, we should scrap all the
>> references to `ShellFolder`.
>
> Since it is mentioned in other places, I would rather not scrap it. Also,
> since in most places it is mentioned as a non-link value, I chose to modify
> it.
The `<code>` element does not create a link, it uses monospace font to render
its contents which implies it's part of computer code. Class names usually
marked up with `<code>` HTML element or with `{@code }` javadoc element.
These aren't used consistently. Often classes aren't marked up. So you're
right: in the majority of cases, `ShellFolder` isn't marked up. The `<code>`
markup is used in two methods only: `isRoot` and `getChild`.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7004
