Hi Mattias, I’ve found a few more glitches:
doc/form/refF.html, line 101: A missing “</a>” doc/form/refF.html, line 104: “</dl>” should have been “<dl>” doc/form/refO.html, line 100: A missing “</dl>” doc/form/refQ.html, line 20: “</code>” should have been “<code>” doc/form/refS.html, line 67: “</gui>” should have been “</a>” doc/form/refV.html, line 17: “<code><pre>” should have been “<pre><code>” doc/form/refV.html, line 19: “</pre></code>” should have been “</code></pre>” There are also quite a few places like in doc/form/form.html, lines 69, 79 and 83, where I think “<foo>” should have been coded like “<foo>”. And Alex: doc/app.html, line 2208: “<code<a” should have been “<code><a” /Jon > On 20. Jan, 2017, at 19:37, Mattias Sundblad <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Jon, > >> In the docs there are lots of occurrences (2325) of “</a></code>”, and also >> some (751, mainly within doc/form/) of “</code></a>”. I haven’t checked >> which one is the most correct. However, in doc/form/refC.html, line 82, >> there’s a bad mix: >> >> <dt><a name="+Chg"><code>+Chg</a></code> > > I'll change refC.html. Thanks for noticing! > >> I suspect there may be more of this mixed kind, but I don’t have time to >> check it right now. > > There probably is, along with other oversights. I am a bit busy this > weekend, but I will start going through the form docs and make > corrections as soon as possible. Good to see the docs being used! > > // Mattias PԔ � &j)m����X��� ��zV�u�.n7�
