On 12/21/2016 6:08 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 21.12.2016 um 18:09 schrieb Jim Holsenback:
>> On 12/21/2016 10:35 AM, clipka wrote:
>>> As for the syntax, I've decided to take it into my own hands now.
>>
>> good thing i'm /going with the flow/ ... i've touched this waaaay too
>> many times to justify my further involvement with the issues on this
>> page. btw: look at the old page and see that i've /done/ a lot to clean
>> up the one big gigantic run one sentence that this page /was/ before i
>> got hold of it
>
> Care to define "old" page?

what was released @ 3.7
>
>
>>> You know that something is utterly wrong with the structure of a page if
>>> the table of contents is preceded by an entire 2 pages worth of text.
>>
>> this is a side-effect of the half-baked reference re-sectioning that i
>> was opposed to at 3.7 release ... added __NOTOC__ to suppress table of
>> contents
>
> ... which now makes the thing inconsistent with the other pages (e.g.
> http://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Light_Source). Meh.

you griped and i responded ... the ___NOTOC___ wiki markup appears in 
more than several pages even had to create a filter in wikidocgen to 
remove from the content because it's /not/ html

>
> With the pages on the Wiki being as long as they are, I'd really love to
> have a TOC in there. Preferably high up on the page. Maybe the simplest
> way to achieve this would be to insert a heading before the syntax pane
> on all those pages. (If that sits well with you, but you don't want to
> be burdened with the work, let me know and I'll do the edits.)

wiki only creates TOC in pages with more than 3 headings ...

>
>>> I think the description of the finish-level `fresnel` keyword and its
>>> effect is utterly misplaced there, and should instead be given a section
>>> of its own
>>
>> disagree ... but it's in your hands now ... correct?
>
> I don't know. Is it? How about the rest of the docs?
>
> I just grabbed hold of the syntax because it absolutely positively
> failed to match the code, there was no ambiguity in how it would have to
> be fixed, and I realized it would be far easier to just do the changes
> than go into a lengthy discussion with you why it was wrong. I even
> resisted a brief urge to do other changes to the syntax pane, such as
> re-ordering the finish items.
>

Post a reply to this message