Cross referencing in Ddoc

[H. S. Teoh]

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 06:12:02PM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/31/13 11:51 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 09:08:07AM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>On 12/31/13 4:26 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> >[...]
> >>>>>4. It doesn't rely on embedded HTML, as such will impede
> >>>>>extraction and formatting for other purposes.
> >>>
> >>>As far as I know this isn't very useful. For the other formats we
> >>>use, like PDF, it uses the HTML output as a base.
> >>
> >>Again no. You are misinformed. The PDF manual is generated via LaTeX
> >>from the same ddoc sources as the HTML pages.
> >[...]
> >
> >This is true.
> >
> >I will note, however, that limitations in Ddoc make the LaTeX output
> >less than ideal. Many fine points of LaTeX formatting are ignored or
> >simply not possible (e.g., proper use of em- and en-dashes, proper
> >use of '.\ ', non-breaking spaces, hyphenation hints, etc.). In some
> >cases, postprocessing is needed to take full advantage of the LaTeX
> >format (esp. for display of math formulas, which is one of LaTeX's
> >biggest selling points).
> >
> >Even for HTML, the lack of semantic support for paragraphs means
> >XHTML compliance is out of the question, and any proper tag nesting
> >where paragraphs are involved is a fragile hack that is likely
> >non-HTML compliant. But nobody notices this because most browsers are
> >too permissive in what they accept.
> 
> These should be fixed in ddoc.
[...]

For HTML:

	https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9731

For LaTeX, though, it would require some pretty radical changes to ddoc,
that I'm not sure will be accepted.


T

-- 
Blunt statements really don't have a point.