Please see the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8132468/webrev.01/
removed wrapping <code></code> around the links (mostly
PrintStream.java, PrintWriter.java, File.java), plus other changes in
File.java
Thanks,
Alexander
On 8/3/2015 3:40 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello Daniel,
Thank you for the notes;
> The <code></code> is not needed around {@link } - as that should be
the default formatting for {@link }
Sorry, didn't know; I have to fix that.
> Would that be easier to read as:
Yes, probably that's better. Some old-style <code></code> tags were
saved just because of some extra code formatting (like italic letters,
<strong> or <sup> tags etc.) inside of them (which should be displayed
literally in case of {@code })
> if the goal is to replace <code></code> and <tt></tt> everywhere
Sorry, I didn't replace *all* of <code></code>, just some of them. The
main intention was to replace just <tt></tt> (as the tag is deprecated
for HTML5, in contrast to the <code>). So the touched packages (and
even files) still have a lot of <code> tags.
Thanks,
Alexander
On 8/3/2015 3:17 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 03/08/15 11:31, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the following fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8132468/webrev.00/
for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8132468
Just some cleanup for docs (replacing obsolete "<tt></tt>").
Thanks,
Alexander
Hi Alexander,
mostly looks good to me - with afew remarks though.
In some files, such as
src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/Console.java and
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ClassLoader.java
(possibly others) - you're using formatting like:
+ * <code>{@link #readLine}</code>.
The <code></code> is not needed around {@link } - as that should be
the default formatting for {@link } (we use {@linkplain } when we
don't want the code formatting for @link).
src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/File.java
+ * <blockquote><code>
+ * new File(</code><i> f</i><code>.{@link
+ * #toURI() toURI}()).equals(</code><i> f</i><code>.{@link
+ * #getAbsoluteFile() getAbsoluteFile}())
+ * </code></blockquote>
Would that be easier to read as:
* <blockquote>{@code new File(f.}{@link
* #toURI() toURI()}{@code .equals(f.}{@link
* #getAbsoluteFile() getAbsoluteFile()}{@code )}
* </blockquote>
(not sure why the original text has hard spaces   - as
we usually don't put any space after an open parenthesis)
Same remark for this a few lines below:
+ * <blockquote><code>
+ * new {@link #File(java.net.URI) File}(</code><i> f</i>{@code
+ * .toURI()).equals(}<i> f</i><code>.{@link
#getAbsoluteFile() getAbsoluteFile}())
+ * </code></blockquote>
I mean - I don't particularly object but if the goal is to replace
<code></code> and <tt></tt> everywhere - then why not go the full
way down?
The other question is whether <pre></pre> would be a better fit than
<blockquote><code></code></blockquote>.
Otherwise looks good!
-- daniel
