<AWT Dev> [12]RFR: JDK-8213048: Invalid use of HTML5 in java.awt files

[Alexey Ivanov]

Hi Krishna,

On 26/11/2018 22:13, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
> Hi, Krishna.
>
>> I added the closing "</li>" tag, since it wouldn't hurt and the tool 
>> was reporting it.
>
> But this tag is unused in our code, is not required by html5 and it 
> was not reported in the bug report.
> So I suggest to do not add them.

I agree with Sergey. Closing tag for <li> is not required. Adding it 
generates noise in code review: 2 out of 4 files do not contain tables 
at all. If the closing </li> tag is to be included, it should rather be 
done under a separate bugid.

>> As for the style spec, thanks for your suggestion, I have moved it to 
>> the style block in the head section.
>
> Can we to drop them completely? are these custom styles really necessary?

I think we can drop all these properties at least for 
DesktopProperties.html.


The first table – The Standard Blocking Matrix — in Modality.html could 
benefit from centring the text. On the other hand, it remains readable 
and understandable when using the default left alignment.

You could also remove commented out <center> and </center> around the table:
210 <!--        <center> -->
250 <!--        </center> -->

The redundant <p> </p> at lines 209 and 211 can safely be removed. 
(Empty paragraphs are ignored in HTML anyway.)

The second table in Examples is there for no particular reason. I think 
presenting the examples in a nested list would be clearer than using a 
table where the second column is the example number.

It could be presented as:

<ul>
     <li><b>Example 1<b>
         <ol>
             <li>...
         </ol>
     <li><b>Example 2<b>
...
</ul>

Isn't it better?


Modality.html extensively uses underlined text. It should rather be bold 
or italic. Underline is reserved for hyperlinks and it's not recommended 
to use underline for any other purpose. Shall I file a bug to clean this up?

DesktopProperties.html for some reason uses Javadoc {@code ...} and 
{@link ...} formatting, it does not make sense in plain HTML. Is it yet 
another bug?

-- 
Regards,
Alexey