Thanks Roger! I'll check this changeset in for now to fix the
accessibility issue, with a note that a future solution that correctly
generates the appropriate and consistent headers is desirable.
JDK-8199895 may be used for further discussion.
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199
Hi Joe,
Looks fine.
(I would be in favor of a future solution that correctly generated/fixed
up the appropriate headers;
Manual editing and corrections are an unnecessary overhead.)
Thanks, Roger
On 3/21/2018 6:47 PM, Joe Wang wrote:
They look ok. They actually go better with the package nam
They look ok. They actually go better with the package name when they
are just 1 level down instead of 2, that is, rather than for
the titles when the package name is . If we don't want the strong
emphasis on the titles, we could lower the package name generated by
javadoc to instead of . Th
On 3/21/18 2:28 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 21/03/2018 19:08, Joe Wang wrote:
:
*Item 3*: Heading leavels should only increase by one
This is due to the javadoc tool generates a header with an
addition of headings, in this particular case, . The fix for this
particular case is to replace
On 21/03/2018 19:08, Joe Wang wrote:
:
*Item 3*: Heading leavels should only increase by one
This is due to the javadoc tool generates a header with an
addition of headings, in this particular case, . The fix for this
particular case is to replace the s with .
I assume this has the effect
looks fine Joe
> On Mar 21, 2018, at 3:08 PM, Joe Wang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please an accessibility fix for several package-info files.
>
> The report contained 4 items. Among them, 1 and 2 are issues in the javadoc
> tool, and 3 could use an improvement in the tool or documentation. For
> ref
