From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-12 07:37:39
From: "Daryle Walker" <darylew_at_[hidden]>
> on 10/11/00 12:20 AM, David Abrahams at abrahams_at_[hidden] wrote:
> > 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
> > (Daryle's) approval, which I presume is why he changed hrefs to cites,
> > 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
> 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.
The original was written by Beman using FrontPage, but most subsequent edits
were made by me (by hand) and by Jeremy and Alexy (by unknown means).
> 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
> introduced in HTML 4).
Don't know what iCab is.
BTW, I've found that Word 2000 followed by HTMLTidy to strip out all the
garbage makes pretty clean-looking HTML. HTMLKit is of little use to me
except for having HTMLTidy - I'd just as soon stick with emacs. Also the
psgml mode someone mentioned for emacs doesn't come with the latest emacs
(20.6), and I don't know where to get it. Emacs-20.6 does of course have
> You mentioned that a Contents section may be a good idea. And I agree
> 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.
That would be helpful. Please stick with explanation /headers/ if possible.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk