Re: a few -Thtml nits

[Jan Stary <hans@stare.cz>]

On Jun 07 17:24:20, hans@stare.cz wrote:
> On Jun 07 16:59:48, hans@stare.cz wrote:
> > Hi Ingo,
> > 
> > firts of all, many thanks for the continuous improvements of mandoc.
> > 
> > I am in the process of converting the rtptools' html manpages
> > to be generated from the actual manpages with mandoc -Thtml.
> > 
> > https://github.com/janstary/rtptools/commits/webpage
> > ./configure && make clean html
> > 
> > Mostly, mandoc -Thtml -O style,man works very well.
> > However, there are a few nits.
> > 
> > 1. The w3c validator finds what it considers fatal errors in the output:
> > https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fbiblio.stare.cz%2Frtptools%2Frtpdump.1.html
> > The problem seems to be that the generated html manpage contains,
> > as a long html comment, the obligate license statement (itself a comment
> > in the mdoc source) which is long enough to push the <meta charset="utf-8"/>
> > _after_ the first 1024 bytes, which the validator considers a problem.
> > 
> > 2. I can link to http://biblio.stare.cz/rtptools/rtpdump.1.html#F
> > - would it be an improvement if mandoc -Thtml created such links
> > in the SYNOPIS, or would it be too much clutter in the one line?
> > 
> > 3. The AUTHORS get rendered fine; could the .An John Doe Mt ...
> > be rendered in the -Thtml output as a "mailto:", or is it
> > a special case not worth the complication?
> 
> 4. Why the empty
> 
>   <dt class="It-tag">&#x00A0;</dt>
>   <dd class="It-tag">&#x00A0;</dd>
> 
> between the individual options?

Ha, these are only produced with -O style=...
(and it's not the style sheet that does it).

	Jan

--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mandoc.bsd.lv