formatting in syntax_doc
bookreader at gmx.com
Fri Apr 2 10:00:13 PST 2004
On Friday 02 April 2004 16:02, James Robertson wrote:
> Reinhard wrote:
> > Hello,
> > last time I worked a bit with the syntax doc (HTML-version).
> > In toc the tags play little role. The 'Element' is the eyecatcher cause
> > of the indentation and its optical weight.
> > So what do you think about emphasizing the tags?
> > Within all the links it's now a pain for the eyes to find a tag - nearly
> > impossible without the textsearch of the browser.
> > Kind regards
> > Reinhard
> Please explain further. Do you mean that the word 'element' is used so
> often in the TOC? I can pull the word out, ...
NO. I don't want you to change the words. They're all ok.
Just compare this (from the txt-variant):
this is perfect readable. With the extra empty line, the tokens have enuf room
to catch the eye.
Compare it to the HTML-version:
Just look at the token <stage> in the middle.
In the first variant, no problem.
In the second variant you need a closer look.
From my point of view, the tokens are the most important in the toc.
If you go to the toc, you like to find the link for i.e. <stage>.
'Element', 'Syntax', 'Description', 'Examples' play a subordinated role.
But as all is rendered with the same fontsize and the tokens have lowercase
letters, whereas the other words are capitalized, the tokens are visually
That could be fixed by rendering the tokens (i.e. <stage>) in bold letters, or
increase the fontsize, or line-height like in the txt-variant, whatever.
More information about the alfs-discuss