Andrei's Google Talk

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-08-06 19:23, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:48:00 -0400, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-08-06 17:41, Alexander Malakhov wrote:
>>> Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> писал(а) в своём письме Fri,
>>> 06 Aug 2010 18:28:41 +0700:
>>>
>>>> 2. It seems like the documentation is HTML written as ddoc. I see $(P)
>>>> tags, $(LI) tags, etc. Can't we just write it as HTML?
>>>
>>> I have had exactly same thought when I've first seen DDoc a week ago
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think many would feel much more comfortable that way.
>>>
>>> I have virtually zero exp with HTML/XML, but DDocs syntax seems to be
>>> pretty
>>> straightforward
>>>
>>>> It's also more supported by editors. I forgot a closing parentheses on
>>>> one tag, and it screwed up the entire page. I had to find it by hand,
>>>> whereas an HTML editor could red-flag a tag without a closing tag, or
>>>> you could run it through an XML verifier (if it's xhtml).
>>>
>>> Good points. And XML is not going to disappear anytime soon, so there
>>> will
>>> always be a lot of people familiar with it, as wall as tool for it.
>>> So I think it would be reasonable to have <tag/> syntax and HTML tags
>>> like <B>, <I> etc.
>>>
>>> Also, for example, what if I want to put extra ')' paren into $(D text)?
>>> I think there is (simple) solution, but that is one more thing to learn.
>>> In the end it's just markup language and I don't see much use in
>>> learning
>>> more then one of them.
>
>>>
>>> One reason of it I can think of: parsing speed and ambiguities (same as
>>> with <templates>)
>>>
>>> Anyway, when D will take over the world, they will have to change HTML
>>> syntax to fit what everyone already knows )
>>
>> One reason is why HTML is not used directly is that you could output
>> the documentation in other formats than HTML, like PDF. A second
>> reason to use macros (i.e. $(B arg)) instead of HTML is that this
>> allows you to have the macro expand into something like this <span
>> class="bold">arg</span> instead of <b>arg<b>. Of course one could
>> define a language in XML to use instead of the macros.
>
> Does ddoc output in pdf? And besides, most of the tags *are* html tags,
> they're even the same tag name. I can't imagine there's no htmltopdf
> program that would do exactly that.
>
> Regarding the <span class="bold"> thing, can't you just do this in css:
>
> b {
> whatever;
> }

Many/some of the "style" tags have been deprecated in XHTML/HTML5. Now, 
apparently "b" wasn't one of them as I first thought.

> and override what <b> does? There are probably macros which do other
> things that xhtml/css cannot do, but I don't think we should use macros
> for every html element. For example, the $(V1) and $(V2) tags. We need a
> good solution for that, and I think having dmd work those out is fine. I
> also don't mind using the macros for more dynamic stuff. I just think
> the formatting stuff can remain html, and all the macros should be
> defined/documented somewhere.
>
> I like this explanation from Alexander:
>
> In the end it's just markup language and I don't see much use in
> learning more then one of them.
>
> It's just a thought, it might be blowing out of proportion a bit.
> Granted I think I would have felt more comfortable using html directly,
> but it wasn't that hard to learn, and I was able to work through the
> issues. I just wish I had some editor help...
>
> -Steve

Would it be better to write in XML that then converts it to the output 
format?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg