Brendan Jurd wrote:
> Reviewing this patch now; I'm working from the 'iso8601' branch in
> ... I thought I'd post a patch of my own (against your branch)
> and accompany it with a few explanatory notes.
Wow thanks! That's very helpful (though it might have been more
fair to your time if you just kicked it back to me saying "rewrite
the docs" so they make sense)!
I've applied them with a couple minor changes.
* If ISO 8601 5.5.3.1.d's statement "The designator T shall be
absent if all of the time components are absent." also applies
to 5.5.4.2.2; then I think the 'T' needed to be inside the
<optional> tags, so I moved it there. The link to the spec's
below[1].
* There was a <sect2> that the patch changed to a <sect3>, and
with that change I get an error:
openjade:datatype.sgml:2306:31:E: document type does not allow element "SECT3" here
so I changed it back to a <sect2>.
You can see my changes to your patch on gitweb here: http://tinyurl.com/6crks6
and see how they got applied after your patch here http://tinyurl.com/685hla
I think I've updated my website, my git, and the cleanup patch to include
these changes now.
> Most of these changes are of a highly subjective nature. I think they
> are improvements, but someone else might prefer the way it was before
> I got my hands dirty. Please consider the changes in my patch a set
> of suggestions for making the documentation on this feature a little
> easier to digest. You're welcome to take or leave them as you see
> fit.
They're clearly improvements. I'm a total novice when it comes to
writing docs.
[1]
http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/4021199/ISO_8601_2004_E.zip?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=4021199