Re: A Formal Review Request

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-11 22:40:07

I get the daily digest version, and I skipped a day recently.  This is why
my response time is slow.  I didn't realize that my request would spark
lessons and a big debate....

on 10/11/00 12:20 AM, David Abrahams at abrahams_at_[hidden] wrote:

[SNIP]
> Problem is, I thought the stuff I was doing by hand in the previous
> operators page /was/ simple, but apparently it didn't meet with the expert's
> (Daryle's) approval, which I presume is why he changed hrefs to cites, for
> example. I haven't heard from Daryle, though, so I really can't tell how
> much I need to know in order to do an acceptable job.

I'm not really an expert.  I did some basic HTML coding right before the
Internet-for-the-masses era in the early 1990's.  I dropped all web stuff in
the mid-1990's until now doing Boost stuff.

The citation tags ("<CITE>") are just a personal style choice, they're not
really "official."  Same thing with spacing out stuff more.  So don't take
my changes as your version being "disapproved."  I did some clean up, and
had to add a lot of stuff anyway, and I guess I got a little carried away.

You did the original versions by hand?  I thought it was automated from
seeing the FrontPage tags.  Maybe those tags were added by FrontPage when
Beman added the page to the web site.

I think the original version, when run through iCab, complained of a few
incorrect tags, no DOCTYPE identifier (this indicates the HTML version,
without it, iCab assumes HTML 3.2), and the unknown TBODY tag (since it was
introduced in HTML 4).

You mentioned that a Contents section may be a good idea.  And I agree that
the explanation footers for the arithmetic operators don't match the
explanations for the dereference operator section.  I can try to make them
more consistent.

--