On 2010-08-06 17:41, Alexander Malakhov wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> писал(а) в своём письме Fri,
06 Aug 2010 18:28:41 +0700:
2. It seems like the documentation is HTML written as ddoc. I see $(P)
tags, $(LI) tags, etc. Can't we just write it as HTML?
I have had exactly same thought when I've first seen DDoc a week ago
I think many would feel much more comfortable that way.
I have virtually zero exp with HTML/XML, but DDocs syntax seems to be
pretty
straightforward
It's also more supported by editors. I forgot a closing parentheses on
one tag, and it screwed up the entire page. I had to find it by hand,
whereas an HTML editor could red-flag a tag without a closing tag, or
you could run it through an XML verifier (if it's xhtml).
Good points. And XML is not going to disappear anytime soon, so there will
always be a lot of people familiar with it, as wall as tool for it.
So I think it would be reasonable to have <tag/> syntax and HTML tags
like <B>, <I> etc.
Also, for example, what if I want to put extra ')' paren into $(D text)?
I think there is (simple) solution, but that is one more thing to learn.
In the end it's just markup language and I don't see much use in learning
more then one of them.
One reason of it I can think of: parsing speed and ambiguities (same as
with <templates>)
Anyway, when D will take over the world, they will have to change HTML
syntax to fit what everyone already knows )
One reason is why HTML is not used directly is that you could output the
documentation in other formats than HTML, like PDF. A second reason to
use macros (i.e. $(B arg)) instead of HTML is that this allows you to
have the macro expand into something like this <span
class="bold">arg</span> instead of <b>arg<b>. Of course one could define
a language in XML to use instead of the macros.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
