I had a comment here:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-July/019308.html
Regarding strict HTML 4.01 compliance - majority of people don't care.
If javadoc takes a moral stand on this issue, a lot of people will be
annoyed and angry. That's in the best interest of javadoc as
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Zhong Yu wrote:
> I had a comment here:
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-July/019308.html
>
> Regarding strict HTML 4.01 compliance - majority of people don't care.
> If javadoc takes a moral stand on this issue, a lot of people will be
>
On 01/07/2014 12:03 AM, Zhong Yu wrote:
That is*not* in the best interest of javadoc.
Also note that, people who write do so from their own "moral"
ground, they think it is the right thing to do.
Javadoc can choose to produce strict html 4.01, but it doesn't have to
only consume strict html 4
On 01/06/2014 01:22 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
* @link and @see have changed behavior, in particular we have quite a
few places with
@see "http://www.winzip.com/wz54.htm";
that used to work just fine but now creates "unexpected text"
warnings
- "foo" is supposed to create a "fo
On 12/23/2013 04:40 AM, Rory O'Donnell Oracle, Dublin Ireland wrote:
Hi Stefan,
CC'ing the javadoc mailing list, best place to discuss.
Rgds,Rory
On 22/12/2013 07:22, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2013-12-19, Rory O'Donnell Oracle, Dublin Ireland wrote:
Some problems may have been fixed, but the
Hi Stefan,
CC'ing the javadoc mailing list, best place to discuss.
Rgds,Rory
On 22/12/2013 07:22, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2013-12-19, Rory O'Donnell Oracle, Dublin Ireland wrote:
Some problems may have been fixed, but the user experience is not much
better, sorry.
I tested b120 against Ant,
