C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] SD-6 document structure

From: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 15:36:53 +0200
I agree with not having zero-width spaces. (This is HTML, after all.)

I'm weakly in favor of splitting the document into two HTML files
for better manageability.
I'm weakly opposed to splitting the document into two HTML files,
because I'm concerned about how to explain to people that SD-6 is
not a single file. Even the standard proper (in PDF form) is just a
single file, although a big one.

(In summary, I'm weakly neutral, it seems.)

Or is this splitting just for author convenience? Then maybe we
need to convert the HTML to something that can be published as
a single PDF, although maintained in several source files.


On 08/04/2016 10:36 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> I have deleted the zero-width spaces. I'm waiting for more feedback on this
> topic before I do anything more radical.
> Clark
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Spicer [mailto:jhs_at_[hidden]]
>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 12:25 PM
>> To: Nelson, Clark
>> Cc: features_at_[hidden] (features_at_[hidden])
>> Subject: Re: [SG10] SD-6 document structure
>>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Nelson, Clark
>> <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> A year or so ago I mentioned that I thought it would be good idea
>> for SD-6
>>> to have an index of macro names. I haven't done anything about
>> that yet, but
>>> I haven't forgotten about it.
>>> More recently, it seems to me that the document has gotten fairly
>>> cumbersome. I'm starting to think that it would be helpful if all
>> the
>>> rationale (including examples) appeared in a separate HTML file
>> from the
>>> tables, even if it were logically considered part of the same
>> document.
>> I like the idea of having one document that is essentially just the
>> table and moving the other information into separate document(s).
>>> It seems to me it might also simplify the maintenance of the index
>> if it
>>> were in a separate HTML file.
>>> Does anyone think the idea of splitting up the logical document
>> into
>>> separate physical documents would be particularly good or bad?
>>> On a somewhat related topic, as an experiment I have introduced
>> zero-width
>>> spaces into some of the longer macro names. The idea was to try to
>> get the
>>> tables presented in a more reasonable width. OTOH, I'm afraid that
>> will
>>> tend to mess up searches for the macro names. OYAH, if we had an
>> index,
>>> impacting string searches would be less serious.
>> I think it would be better to avoid zero-width spaces as that would
>> also impair searching within the document.
>>> And here's another idea that has occurred to me. Today, in the
>> rationale
>>> section, I have HTML comments that name a paper's author, and the
>>> contributor of whatever rationale or example we have. But it might
>> be useful
>>> to have that information available in the content of the document,
>> so people
>>> can easily find stuff that's relevant to them (without having to
>> dig into
>>> the HTML). To make that work would really require CSS tricks --
>> but the way
>>> SD-6 is currently published on isocpp.org (i.e. wiki-like
>> markdown), CSS
>>> can't really be used. So even if we don't want to split up the
>> document, we
>>> might want to change the way SD-6 is hosted on isocpp.org.
>> It the explanatory information and rationale were in a separate
>> document we might be able to just have that information always be
>> present in the displayed text.
>> John.
>>> Any thoughts?
>>> Clark
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Features mailing list
>>> Features_at_[hidden]
>>> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features

Received on 2016-08-05 15:42:05