Re: Add id's to various elements in protocol.sgml

On 03/01/22 14:50, Brar Piening wrote:
> TBH I don't like the visual representation of the unicode link symbol
> (U+1F517) in my browser. It's a bold black fat thing that doesn't
> inherit colors. I've tried to soften it by decreasing the size but that
> doesn't really solve it for me. Font support also doesn't seem
> overwhelming.

That sounds like it's probably in less wide use than I thought, and if the
font support is spotty, that seems like a good enough reason not to go
there. I've no objection to the # symbol. Maybe this should really get
a comment from someone more actively involved in styling the web site.

>> As long as we stick to manually assigned ids in the same way my patch
>> does it, it shouldn't be too hard.
>
> Patch is attached. I don't think it should get applied this way, though.
> The fact that you only get links for section headers that have manually
> assigned ids would be pretty surprising for users of the docs and in
> some files (e.g. protocol-flow.html) only every other section has a
> manually assigned id. It would be easy to emit a message (or even fail)
> whenever the template fails to find an id and then manually assign ids
> until they are everywhere (currently that means all varlistentries and
> sections) but that would a) be quite some work and b) make the patch
> quite heavy, so I wouldn't even start this before there is really
> consensus that this is the right direction.

This sounds like a bigger deal, and I wonder if it is big enough to merit
splitting the patch, so the added ids can go into protocol.sgml promptly
(and not be any harder to find than any of our fragment ids currently are),
and "improve html docs to expose fragment ids" can get more thought.

As long as we haven't assigned ids to all sections, I could almost think
of the surprising behavior as a feature, distinguishing the links you can
reasonably bet on being stable from the ones you can't. (Maybe the latter
should have their own symbol! 1F3B2?) But you're probably right that it
would seem surprising and arbitrary. And I don't know how much enthusiasm
there will be for assigning ids everywhere.

Regards,
-Chap