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 “&lt;foo&gt;”.

And Alex:

doc/app.html, line 2208: “<code<a” should have been “<code><a”

/Jon

> On 20. Jan, 2017, at 19:37, Mattias Sundblad <mattias....@gmail.com> 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�

Reply via email to