On Fri, 24 May 2024 15:47:02 GMT, Hannes Wallnöfer <hann...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review a relatively simple update to the generated Help page, as part 
>> of the ongoing campaign to improve the documentation around the overall use 
>> of `@since` tags.
>
> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/resources/standard.properties
>  line 381:
> 
>> 379: # The title for the Javadoc Search Specification
>> 380: doclet.help.search.spec.title=Javadoc Search Specification
>> 381: doclet.help.releases.head=Release Details
> 
> The subtitle "Release Details" surprised me, because it seems to suggest 
> "details about releases", while it is more like "release information 
> (contained in API details)".

I'll look to see what I can improve

> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/resources/standard.properties
>  line 389:
> 
>> 387:     include the release in which the member was introduced, in those 
>> situations \
>> 388:     where the member was added after the initial introduction of the \
>> 389:     enclosing class or interface.
> 
> I think "normally" is confusing here, because a member being added in a later 
> release is not necessary the "normal" case. How about reversing the sentence 
> to make it immediately clear what we're talking about?
> 
>> In those situations where a member was added after the initial introduction 
>> of the enclosing class or interface, the detail of the member includes the 
>> release in which it was introduced.

Yeah, I agree the use of `normally` here could be seen as ambiguous. The comma 
on line 387 doesn't help.

> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/resources/standard.properties
>  line 392:
> 
>> 390: doclet.help.releases.body.refer=\
>> 391:     Some summary pages allow you to filter the contents of the page 
>> according to \
>> 392:     the release in which the declaration was introduced or deprecated.
> 
> We already have help sections for New and Deprecated API, and the paragraph 
> is somewhat vague. I think we should at least mention the summary pages by 
> name ("New API", "Deprecated API"). Maybe link to the pages or help sections?

The hard bit is that those pages may not always be present, depending on the 
command-line options...

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19222#discussion_r1617825827
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19222#discussion_r1617824737
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19222#discussion_r1617826901

Reply via email to