From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 22 00:30:20 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E12106566B for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:30:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F958FC0A for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:30:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0M0UIlM072317; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:30:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q0M0UIAt072314; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:30:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:30:18 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: Gabor Kovesdan In-Reply-To: <4F1B4767.5070105@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: References: <4F1B4767.5070105@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:30:19 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Tidy and HTML tab spacing X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:30:20 -0000 On Sun, 22 Jan 2012, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: > On 2012.01.18. 23:49, Warren Block wrote: >> 5. Don't tidy HTML files at all (suggested as an option by Benedict >> Reuschling). The unprocessed HTML is ugly, but few people are going >> to look at it directly. Files that haven't been through tidy are a >> little larger, about 4% in the case of the Porter's Handbook. > I also think tidy should be removed. As hrs wrote, new standards should be > evaluated and probably they are much better. (I think they are.) If there are > some nits, then we should process it with a custom script or something, > instead of this crapware. Tidy does a lot; it would be a lot of work to recreate. There's a default choice I didn't mention earlier: 0. Leave it alone. (Maybe this will all change with the DocBook XML changeover. I don't know when that is supposed to happen, but if it's not too long, this could be the right way to go.) Finally, there's one last choice: 6. A pretty good case could be made for using instead of tabs in the source blocks. The more I think about it, the more technically-correct that seems. In that case, tidy should be fine as it is now.