|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Improve line number display of GeSHi syntaxhiglighting||0||08:16, 23 August 2013|
|Disagree with bold+italic and code tag guidelines||7||20:03, 6 December 2011|
|Special Tags||2||08:21, 4 June 2011|
Reading example codes with line numbers is currently difficult because the line numbers are shown in individual lines with code below it. It is preferable to have line number in the same line as the code. Please see the screenshots below for clarity.
I could get the line numbers to be displayed on the same line by editing bootstrap-mediawiki.css line 568 and removing the "list-style-position: inside;" style. Please look into this and edit the file on the server to display example codes in better manner.
I think that's overkill, it draws wayyy too much attention. Just use italics for variable and replaceable text, that's the convention used by O'Reilly books and most web sites. (The semantic HTML tag for variable text is <var> — enter your User Name. Note how it's just italic, not italic+bold.)
Surely the <code> tag must extend over all the bits you type in, otherwise it's incoherent. The examples given are wrong.
firstname.lastname@example.org in Konsole
ssh email@example.com Konsole
ssh firstname.lastname@example.org Konsole
Besides, the correct tag for things you must type is the <kbd> tag. From the HTML 2.0 spec at w3.org, "The KBD element indicates text typed by a user." <code> should be for bits of config files, sample output, etc. Let's try kbd:
The steps to get there from here are:
I generally have nothing against that. But...
We have already Parley/Manual that does not even follow the current guidelines. Can anybody be a volunteer and fix everything (well, as the only manual which is more or less up-to-date and complete now, at least Amarok/Manual) on manual pages?
It would also be good to present some table of correspondence. Ex.:
|Inline user input||<kbd></kbd>||<kbd>ssh -h</kbd>||ssh -h|
"Only italic for replaceable and variable text" - I dislike the effect of the combination, but then Italic, standing alone, already has a defined role. In my opinion to give it this role as well will cause a great deal of confusion.
"extend code tag to end of entry" - I agree, but if we develop the additional tag there will be no point in starting such edits.
"kbd tag, not code, for user input" - I await Yurchor's comment as to whether, in the long run, this would help or not. I'm happy to go ahead, if he is, but his comment about getting people to follow rules does stand. We have seen a strong argument in the last week or so where a writer saw no reason to obey our rules.
This leaves us, I think, having to choose between discouraging writers or creating a team of editors to mark up every new page, as soon after creation as possible, with standardised markup. That's something of a thankless task, and I'm not even sure that the authors would accept it.
Re-formatting pages is just a waste of time (imho). Tomorrow someone can dislike something else... If there will be no overlaps we can proceed with any formatting. There are enough editors to fix articles (at least now). And I'd rather revert any inconsistent changes in markup in manuals without having at least a little hope of fixing the whole manual by the particular editor.
The consistent look and feel of manuals is better than inconsistent usage of the best markup ever discovered (imho).
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
You can view and copy the source of this page.skierpage
Anyone got a month or two to spare? Seriously though - since we are all agreed that <code> markup should encompass whole commands, the logical first step is to correct such things as we find them. Even if we felt it worth the time involved, there is no way that you could search for and find such broken instances, so it's down to alertness and common sense.
To be honest, I would rather not include new tags such as <kbd> unless we can see a genuine advantage to it.
Under Special Tags it says:
My question is:
1. Shouldn't Ctrl+Alt+F1 use <keycap></keycap> instead, i.e. Ctrl+Alt+F1
2. Shouldn't the separator be " + ", i.e. (space)+(space), as written on Edit Markup#Special_Tags? In this case it would be Ctrl + Alt + F1
I can change this if I get an OK.
1 - it was bold text merely to draw attention to the group of characters. However, I've accepted your alteration. 2 - Older pages do not have spaces there, newer pages do. I'm not making an issue out of this, since the i10n team haven't expressed a preference, but I've amended the page to show the 'newer' version. Pages with the older version can be changed as and when other edits are needed. Those particular changes should be marked with a "Don't invalidate translation" tag.