RFR [9] 8132468: docs: replace <tt> tags (obsolete in html5) for java.io, java.lang, java.math

[Alexander Stepanov]

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 &nbsp - 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