[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87vaw5hqr2.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 11:11:45 +0200
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Jim Davis <jim.epost@...il.com>,
linux-kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Fix PDF build errors
On Wed, 02 Nov 2016, Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de> wrote:
> Am 02.11.2016 um 17:47 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>:
>> I'm staring to think that we should just redefine the default for ::
>> to be "none", and use the "C" handling **only** when explicitly
>> requested.
>>
>> I remember that Jon did such suggestion sometime ago.
>
> *shrug* ... I think about kernel-doc comments in the sources,
> mostly you will have small examples and won't those verbose
> ".. code-block::" markup / using "::" keeps the comment compact.
I sent the patch [1] to default to "none". It's never wrong, not even
for code. But getting the highlighting wrong, OTOH, is pretty bad. We
have that.
And really, if you look at the kernel-doc comments and the rst
documentation, we don't have all that many literal blocks that would
benefit from syntax highlighting in the first place.
BR,
Jani.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1478164053-4562-1-git-send-email-jani.nikula@intel.com
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists