Thanks for clarification, looks good to me.
Thanks,
Alexander.
On 07/06/2017 23:22, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hi, Alexander.
These closing tags are optional in html5 standard [1]. On the link to
the SO there are three the example which work differently but
according standards[2][3][4].
[1]
Hi, Alexander.
These closing tags are optional in html5 standard [1]. On the link to the SO
there are three the example which work differently but according
standards[2][3][4].
[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#syntax-tag-omission
[2] http://jsfiddle.net/robertc/rNv93/1/
[3]
Hi Sergey,
Why do we omitting closing th tag?
e.g.
+ * Metal's system color mapping
+ *
+ *
+ * Key
+ * Value
+ *
I know that HTML parsers are usually forgiving such things. But
sometimes it may make thing worse:
I don't remember anything left that I would object to .. and we'll push
client changes
to dev this week anyway so it all sounds fine.
-phil.
On 6/4/17, 5:53 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
If there are no objections I'll change the target ws from dev to client, to
minimize the merges between some
If there are no objections I'll change the target ws from dev to client, to
minimize the merges between some other javadoc fixes.
- sergey.bylok...@oracle.com wrote:
> Hello.
> Here is an updated version where most of the caption are visible.
> Bug:
Hello.
Here is an updated version where most of the caption are visible.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180326
Webrev can be found at: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/webrev.02/
Specdiff:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/specdiff.02/overview-summary.html
You can
Phil,
I have no evidence one way or the other whether screen readers pay
attention
to undisplayed or invisible captions. It seemed safest to assume that
they would
read a visible caption, and that we should head in that general direction.
-- Jon
On 05/17/2017 11:58 AM, Phil Race wrote:
I will leave the decision on whether to do that now up to Sergey although
it seems all he has to do here is remove "invisible".
Many of the "summary" ones had wrong or misleading text but they
seem to have been all fixed.
I'd want to see what the new HTML looks like with a visible title of
I've looked through all the files now. No other comments. So approved.
-phil.
On 05/17/2017 11:19 AM, Phil Race wrote:
I am not sure we are using the summary in a way that makes it worthwhile.
As you noted in the other mail
"The summary attribute was used to give a more descriptive value
of
Phil,
The bottom line is that in the JDK docs, tables should not have a
summary attribute and should have a caption. This comes down to
accessibility requirements, where we are slowly raising the bar on our
docs, to be in accordance with Oracle's guidelines.
Hiding the caption
I am not sure we are using the summary in a way that makes it worthwhile.
As you noted in the other mail
"The summary attribute was used to give a more descriptive value
of the contents of the table. A caption is more like a title"
The values I see are more like a title and as you say that is
Sergey,
FWIW, the invisible caption should be regarded as a temporary solution,
until content authors can review/update the text of the caption and make
it visible.
The general guideline in this conversion work has been to avoid changing
the visible text of the specification, and captions
On 05/12/2017 05:03 PM, Philip Race wrote:
On 5/12/17, 4:58 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Phil,
1. javadoc now provides support for 3 named styles in the default
stylesheet:
borderless: no borders
plain: simple 1px borders around tables and cells
striped: reduced
On 5/12/17, 4:58 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Phil,
1. javadoc now provides support for 3 named styles in the default
stylesheet:
borderless: no borders
plain: simple 1px borders around tables and cells
striped: reduced borders; rows have alternating white and
The "summary" is unsupported by the HTML5 and we replace it by invisible
caption.
These new styles are located in the stylesheet.css in the root of the JavaDoc
api folder, so I assume these styles should be used by others as well.
They were added by this fix:
Phil,
1. javadoc now provides support for 3 named styles in the default
stylesheet:
borderless: no borders
plain: simple 1px borders around tables and cells
striped: reduced borders; rows have alternating white and light
grey backgrounds
2. summary attributes are
Does this in any way match the rest of the docs ? Or is everyone left to
style things how they want.
I thought (?) maybe there is to be some javadoc tool support for CSS styles.
Also why are all the table summaries removed ?
-phil.
On 5/12/17, 4:52 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
This is because
Adding 2d-dev because a number of the files are 2D.
What is the general reason for changing the appearance of the tables?
-phil.
On 5/12/17, 4:25 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hello,
Please review the fix for jdk9-dev.
This fix is a part of the effort to make all javadoc in jdk9 be compatible
Hello,
Please review the fix for jdk9-dev.
This fix is a part of the effort to make all javadoc in jdk9 be compatible to
HTML5.
It covers all errors which are reported by the javadoc tool during the build of
jdk for java.desktop module.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180326
19 matches
Mail list logo
