On 09.01.2023 at 21:18, Tom Lane wrote:
It's not great to have multiple CF entries pointing at the same email thread --- it confuses both people and bots. Next time please split off a thread for each distinct patch.
I agree. I had overestimated the cfbot's ability to handle branched threads. I'll create separate threads next time.
* AFAIK our practice is to use "-" never "_" in XML ID attributes. You weren't very consistent about that even within this patch, and the overall effect would have been to have no standard about that at all, which doesn't seem great. I changed them all to "-".
Noted. Maybe it's worth to write a short paragraph about Ids and their style somewhere in the docs (e.g. Appendix J.5).
* I got rid of a couple of "-et-al" additions, because it did not seem like a good precedent. That would tempt people to modify existing ID tags when adding variables to an entry, which'd defeat the purpose I think.
I tried to use it sparsely, mostly where a varlistentry had multiple child items and I had arbitrarily pick one of them. It's not important, though. I'm curious how you solved this.
* I fixed a couple of things that looked like typos or unnecessary inconsistencies. I have to admit that my eyes glazed over after awhile, so there might be remaining infelicities.
I'm all for consistency. The only places where I intentionally refrained from being consistent was where I felt Ids would get too long or where there were already ids in place that didn't match my naming scheme.
It's probably going to be necessary to have follow-on patches, because I'm sure there is stuff in the pipeline that adds more ID-less tags. Or do we have a way to create warnings about that?
Agreed. And yes, we do have a limited way to create warnings (that's part of the other patch).
I'm unqualified to review CSS stuff, so you'll need to get somebody else to review that patch. But I'd suggest reposting it, else the cfbot is going to start whining that the patch-of-record in this thread no longer applies.
I will do that. Thanks for your feedback! Regards, Brar
