This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [wwwdocs] bugs.html addition
- From: Kelley Cook <kelley dot r dot cook at gm dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:33:01 -0400
- Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] bugs.html addition
- References: <Pine.BSF.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3CE15447.email@example.com>
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>On Tue, 14 May 2002, Kelley Cook wrote:
>> BTW, there are a lot of problems with bugs.html. The xhtml is legal
>> syntactically, but there are higher level semantic problems with the
>> proper markup meaning of <code>, <pre>, <blockquote> and others.
>> I'll rework it this week, if you want.
>Yes, please! :)
>(Personally, I had some preference for <blockquote><code>, but Zack,
>IIRC, showed that <pre> might be equivalent or better.)
Actually, the "code" hyperlink that validator gives which is
suggests wrapping multiline code with
<pre><code> ... </code></pre>
So, I was going to go one step further with
<pre style="padding-left:5%"><code> ... </code></pre>
or what I was acutally planning to do and throw "padding-left: 5%"
into an in-line stylesheet.
This works for browsers as far back as IE4 and Netscape 4.
Actually, AFAICT the truly correct way should be just
<code "white-space:pre; padding-left:5%"> ... </code>, but
MS Internet Explorer before version 6.0b has the
white-space tag semantics backwards :(
>> 2002-05-13 Kelley Cook <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> * bugs.html: Add in non-bug on proper va_arg promotions.
>This looks fine from the wwwdocs side, but I'd prefer one of our
>standards experts to actually approve it.
The error/warning was implemented by Richard Henderson, so it seems
he would be the best judge.