[Patches] [ python-Patches-1216942 ] Suggested Additional Material for urllib2 docs

[SourceForge.net]

Patches item #1216942, was opened at 2005-06-08 10:41
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by jjlee
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1216942&group_id=5470

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Documentation
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Mike Foord (mjfoord)
Assigned to: Fred L. Drake, Jr. (fdrake)
Summary: Suggested Additional Material for urllib2 docs

Initial Comment:
This is some suggested additional material for the 
urllib2 docs.

Particularly the part about error codes and the 
reason/code attributes of error objects is *missing* from 
the manual and needed.

Also the example showing basic Authentication using 
password manager/handler/opener may help avoid some 
confusion.

Alternatively you can link to my online tutorials at 
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/articles.shtml#http

:-)



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: John J Lee (jjlee)
Date: 2005-12-22 22:07

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=261020

Just to shout it out again: no need for said patches to
contain TeX markup!-)  Plain text / reST pasted into the
existing docs is ok (though making it clear by some means
what is a heading and what isn't &c. is obviously
desirable).  I only want a patch because that would make it
clear how the additions are intended to be integrated with
the existing docs. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: John J Lee (jjlee)
Date: 2005-12-22 22:01

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=261020

Fred, what will you TeXify?  Are you waiting for Mike to
reply, or were you saying that you'll TeXify what he already
submitted?

Personally, I'm not happy with the original as-is, foremost
because it's not clear how it is intended to fit with the
existing docs (there are certainly other problems with the
suggested additions, but not much point going into detail
before there's a patch).  I would be happy to review / edit
at least some of the content it if it were presented as
patch(es).


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Fred L. Drake, Jr. (fdrake)
Date: 2005-12-22 14:53

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=3066

I'll TeXify.  I agree with John about reproducing the
response code listing; that's a good place to simply defer
to the HTTP spec.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: John J Lee (jjlee)
Date: 2005-12-04 20:01

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=261020

I'm sure doc improvements are welcome here, so thank you :)

However, I think you need to

1) split this up into small patches that address very
specific issues, and briefly justify each change in the
patch submission note on the SF patch tracker

2) present the patches by editing the original .tex source
files from src/Doc/lib and then running 'diff -u' or 'svn
diff'  (it doesn't matter if you can't compile the docs or
get the TeX markup wrong, just as long as everybody can see
exactly what the intended changes to the text are)

Also, one thing that caught my eye on a very brief scan was
that the actual response code->name mapping (rather than a
note to document the existence of that mapping) shouldn't be
reproduced in the docs, I think.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1216942&group_id=5470