Please see the updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8132468/webrev.01/ removed wrapping <code></code> around the links (mostly PrintStream.java, PrintWriter.java, File.java), plus other changes in File.java Thanks, Alexander On 8/3/2015 3:40 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello Daniel,
Thank you for the notes;
The <code></code> is not needed around {@link } - as that should be the default formatting for {@link } Sorry, didn't know; I have to fix that.
Would that be easier to read as: Yes, probably that's better. Some old-style <code></code> tags were saved just because of some extra code formatting (like italic letters, <strong> or <sup> tags etc.) inside of them (which should be displayed literally in case of {@code })
if the goal is to replace <code></code> and <tt></tt> everywhere Sorry, I didn't replace *all* of <code></code>, just some of them. The main intention was to replace just <tt></tt> (as the tag is deprecated for HTML5, in contrast to the <code>). So the touched packages (and even files) still have a lot of <code> tags.
Thanks, Alexander
On 8/3/2015 3:17 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 03/08/15 11:31, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the following fix: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8132468/webrev.00/ for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8132468
Just some cleanup for docs (replacing obsolete "<tt></tt>").
Thanks, Alexander
Hi Alexander,
mostly looks good to me - with afew remarks though.
In some files, such as src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/Console.java and src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ClassLoader.java (possibly others) - you're using formatting like:
+ * <code>{@link #readLine}</code>.
The <code></code> is not needed around {@link } - as that should be the default formatting for {@link } (we use {@linkplain } when we don't want the code formatting for @link).
src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/File.java
+ * <blockquote><code> + * new File(</code><i> f</i><code>.{@link + * #toURI() toURI}()).equals(</code><i> f</i><code>.{@link + * #getAbsoluteFile() getAbsoluteFile}()) + * </code></blockquote>
Would that be easier to read as:
* <blockquote>{@code new File(f.}{@link * #toURI() toURI()}{@code .equals(f.}{@link * #getAbsoluteFile() getAbsoluteFile()}{@code )} * </blockquote>
(not sure why the original text has hard spaces - as we usually don't put any space after an open parenthesis)
Same remark for this a few lines below:
+ * <blockquote><code> + * new {@link #File(java.net.URI) File}(</code><i> f</i>{@code + * .toURI()).equals(}<i> f</i><code>.{@link #getAbsoluteFile() getAbsoluteFile}()) + * </code></blockquote>
I mean - I don't particularly object but if the goal is to replace <code></code> and <tt></tt> everywhere - then why not go the full way down?
The other question is whether <pre></pre> would be a better fit than <blockquote><code></code></blockquote>.
Otherwise looks good!
-- daniel