generator slides review and Python doc (+/- text bug)

[wxjmfauth]

generator slides review and Python doc


I do not know what tool is used to produce such
slides.

When the mouse is over a a text like a title (<H*> ... <\H*> ???)
the text get transformed and a colored eol is appearing.

Example with the slide #3:

Even numbers
becomes
Even numbers§

with a visible colored "§", 'SECTION SIGN'


I noticed the same effect with the Python doc
since ? (long time).

Eg.

The Python Tutorial
appears as
The Python Tutorial¶

with a visible colored "¶", 'PILCROW SIGN',
blueish in Python 3, red in Python 2.7.6.


And in plenty third party Python docs using
probaly the same tool as the official Python
doc.
The eol glyph may vary and may not be a "§" or a "¶".

Windows, Firefox and others.

The .chm files do not seem to be affected.

jmf

 

[Michael Torrie]

generator slides review and Python doc


I do not know what tool is used to produce such
slides.

What slides? What web site are you referring to? A little context
wouldn't hurt.

 

[Rotwang]

[...]

I noticed the same effect with the Python doc
since ? (long time).

Eg.

The Python Tutorial
appears as
The Python Tutorial¶

with a visible colored "¶", 'PILCROW SIGN',
blueish in Python 3, red in Python 2.7.6.

Hint: try clicking the ¶.

 

[andrea crotti]

generator slides review and Python doc


I do not know what tool is used to produce such
slides.

When the mouse is over a a text like a title (<H*> ... <\H*> ???)
the text get transformed and a colored eol is appearing.

Example with the slide #3:

Even numbers
becomes
Even numbers§

with a visible colored "§", 'SECTION SIGN'


I noticed the same effect with the Python doc
since ? (long time).

Eg.

The Python Tutorial
appears as
The Python Tutorial¶

with a visible colored "¶", 'PILCROW SIGN',
blueish in Python 3, red in Python 2.7.6.


And in plenty third party Python docs using
probaly the same tool as the official Python
doc.
The eol glyph may vary and may not be a "§" or a "¶".

Windows, Firefox and others.

The .chm files do not seem to be affected.

jmf

I just saw now this mail you didn't reply to my email correctly..
Anyway I use this:
https://github.com/nyergler/hieroglyph
And I just use sphinx + RST to generate the slides, the raw source is here:
https://raw2.github.com/AndreaCrotti/generators/master/index.rst

 

[wxjmfauth]

Le lundi 3 février 2014 18:42:36 UTC+1, Rotwang a écrit :

[...]
I noticed the same effect with the Python doc

since ? (long time).



The Python Tutorial

appears as

The Python Tutorial¶

with a visible colored "¶", 'PILCROW SIGN',

blueish in Python 3, red in Python 2.7.6

Hint: try clicking the ¶.

I never was aware of this "feature". Is it deliverate?

It gives to me the feeling of a badly programmed
html page, especially if this sign does correspond
to an eol!

jmf

 

[Chris Angelico]

Le lundi 3 février 2014 18:42:36 UTC+1, Rotwang a écrit :

I never was aware of this "feature". Is it deliverate?

It gives to me the feeling of a badly programmed
html page, especially if this sign does correspond
to an eol!

Very deliberate, and very useful. I don't know why that sign should
correspond to a line end; I grew up with it representing "paragraph",
which is close to what it means here. (Well, that and "Ctrl-T", since
it was character 20 on those old systems.) Yes, it does sometimes get
a little distracting as the mouse moves over and away, but it would be
more confusing to have it always shown, and I don't know of any better
way to do it.

ChrisA

 

[Rotwang]

[...]

Hint: try clicking the ¶.

I never was aware of this "feature". Is it deliverate?

Do you mean deliberate? Of course it is.

It gives to me the feeling of a badly programmed
html page, especially if this sign does correspond
to an eol!

Why on Earth would the sign correspond to an EOL? The section sign and
pilcrow have a history of being used to refer to sections and paragraphs
respectively, so using them for permalinks to individual sections of a
web page makes perfect sense.

 

[wxjmfauth]

Le lundi 3 février 2014 19:55:26 UTC+1, Rotwang a écrit :

[...]

Hint: try clicking the ¶.

I never was aware of this "feature". Is it deliverate?

Do you mean deliberate? Of course it is.

It gives to me the feeling of a badly programmed

html page, especially if this sign does correspond

to an eol!

Why on Earth would the sign correspond to an EOL? The section sign and

pilcrow have a history of being used to refer to sections and paragraphs

respectively, so using them for permalinks to individual sections of a

web page makes perfect sense.

Sorry. I should have written "end of paragraph or section".

Having said this, that's because these signs are usually
used to signal an "end of ...', that I find these signs
as link not really meaningful.


jmf

 

[wxjmfauth]

Le lundi 3 février 2014 23:56:43 UTC+1, Ben Finney a écrit :

Why on Earth would the ["¶", U+00B6 PILCROW SIGN] correspond to an

EOL? The section sign and pilcrow have a history of being used to

refer to sections and paragraphs respectively, so using them for

permalinks to individual sections of a web page makes perfect sense.

Symbols commonly have multiple meanings, derived from usage.



<URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilcrow#Contemporary_use>



--

\ "Progress might have been all right once, but it's gone on too |

`\ long." --Ogden Nash |

_o__) |

Ben Finney

I got it. If I'm visiting a page like this:

http://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/index.html#the-python-tutorial

1) To read the page, I'm scrolling down.
2) When I have finished to read the page, I scroll up
(or scroll back/up) to the top of the page until I see
this "feature" and the title.
3) I click on this "feature".
4) The title, already visible, moves, let's say, "2cm" higher.

....?


Having a pilcrow to signal or to display an end of paragraph is
one thing. Using a pilcrow as a link seems to me very strange.
Especially if the target of that link has nothing to with
paragraph, but with "section"!

jmf

 

[Chris Angelico]

2) When I have finished to read the page, I scroll up
(or scroll back/up) to the top of the page until I see
this "feature" and the title.
3) I click on this "feature".
4) The title, already visible, moves, let's say, "2cm" higher.

At which point your URL bar shows a hash link to this exact section,
which you can then copy and paste into an email, for instance. That's
what it's good for.

ChrisA

 

[wxjmfauth]

Le mardi 4 février 2014 15:39:54 UTC+1, Jerry Hill a écrit :

Those links aren't for navigation.



They're so you can discover anchor links in the page and pass them to

someone else. For instance, if I want to point someone to the section

of the tutorial that talks about reading and writing files, I could

just give them this link:

http://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/inputoutput.html#reading-and-writing-files,

instead of pointing them to the main page and instructing them to

scroll down until they see Section 7.2



I was able to discover that link by opening the page, highlighting the

section header with my mouse, then clicking the pilcrow. That gives

me the anchor link to that section header.

Useless and really ugly.

 

[Michael Torrie]

Useless and really ugly.

How do you recommend we discover the anchor links for linking to?

 

[Chris Angelico]

How do you recommend we discover the anchor links for linking to?

Same way you usually do! By right clicking, hitting "View Source", and
poking around until you find the right place!

I've done exactly that with innumerable web sites. It's a massive
luxury to have them explicitly published like that; as well as the
convenience, it gives an impression (whether that's true or false)
that the hash links are deemed important and will therefore be
maintained in the future (unlike, say, a system that has
"http://..../....#s4" for the fourth (or fifth) section - inserting a
section above this one will break my link)

ChrisA
..

 

[Ned Batchelder]

Useless and really ugly.

I'm not sure why you would describe it as useless? It's incredibly
useful to have a way to link to a particular section.

And ugly? It's a UI that is invisible and unobtrusive, but then elegant
once you hover over the element you are interested in.

I guess tastes differ... Lots of sites use this technique, it is not
particular to the Python docs.

 

[Jim Gibson]

How do you recommend we discover the anchor links for linking to?

Use the Table Of Contents panel on the left?

 

[Peter Otten]

How do you recommend we discover the anchor links for linking to?

Why not the whole header? Click anywhere on

7.2.1. Regular Expression Syntax

instead of the tiny ¶ symbol beside it.

 

[andrea crotti]

Le mardi 4 février 2014 15:39:54 UTC+1, Jerry Hill a écrit :

Useless and really ugly.

I think this whole discussion is rather useless instead, why do you
care since you're not going to use this tool anyway?

 

[Terry Reedy]

I'm not sure why you would describe it as useless?

Because, as we should all know by now, when Jim says 'useless', he means
'useless to me, according to my unusual notions of personal usefulness'.
He, apparently, does not intend to ever use the pilcrow to get a section
link, nor does he care about being able to click on such links presented
by others.

It's incredibly useful to have a way to link to a particular section.

For many people, but not for Jim. Either he does not care about
usefulness to others, or he is completely oblivious to how idiosyncratic
his personal idea of usefulness is. In either case, it is useless to
argue against his personal opinion. He should, however, add 'to me'
since most people take 'useless' in the collective sense.

And ugly? It's a UI that is invisible and unobtrusive, but then elegant
once you hover over the element you are interested in.

Having it pop up and disappear when one does not want it and will not
use it is not pretty. When scrolling with a mouse wheel, that does happen.

I guess tastes differ... Lots of sites use this technique, it is not
particular to the Python docs.

Irrelevant to Jim.

 

[Terry Reedy]

Useless and really ugly.

Jim, when you say 'useless', please qualify as 'useless to me'.
Otherwise, people may think that you mean 'useless to eveyone', and it
is disrespectful to mislead people that way. I hope you are aware that
your personal ideas of usefulness to yourself are quite different from
other peoples' ideas of usefulness to themselves.

I now understand that you consider the FSR useless *to you* because you
do not care about the bugginess of narrow builds or about the spacious
of wide builds. You do care about uniformity of character size across
all strings, and FSR lacks that. You are entitled to make that judgment
for yourself. You are not entitled to sabotage others by projecting you
personal judgments onto others. The FSR and pilcrow are definitely
useful to other people as they judge personal usefulness for themselves.

PS. I agree that the pilcrow appearing and disappearing is not pretty
when I am not looking to use it. I happen to think that is it tolerable
because it is sometimes useful.

 

[Terry Reedy]

I think this whole discussion is rather useless.

I agree that responding to Jim's generalized statements such as
'useless' are either sincere personal opinions that are true with
respect to himself, delusional statements that are false with respect to
the community at large, or intentionally false trolls. I really cannot
tell. In any case, I agree that response is pretty useless.