Hi Akira, On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:02 AM Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think you agreed splitting SVG part into its own patch with > a proper copying info, etc. Let me see... So, here is the link: Yes, sorry, will do (in fact, it should have been there in v5 too). By the way, the Linux SVG logo (used to make the one here) is pending in the linux-doc ML. > I might have missed v5 of this patch series. > That might be because v5's 15/20 was not accepted by linux-doc's > lore archive (maybe) due to its size despite it had Cc: linux-doc. > v6's 18/23 was also rejected. Yes, a few patches get rejected in several lists. We were told this was fine as long as LKML gets them (the cover letter has the lists in Cc). > I have some alternative ideas for table formatting in ReST. I was following the LLVM one, but it makes sense to use the other ones where possible. I can send a patch for that one too. > So here are a couple of alternative ways to represent the table > > * ASCII-art format: > * Literal block format: Thanks for taking the time to format the examples, it is useful :) > As you see, those inline-literal markers of ``xxxx``, which are > distracting when the .rst file is read as plain-text, are not > necessary in the literal-block approach. And you can directly I agree, it can be better (it is one reason I find Markdown a bit more readable since it uses a single backquote for that instead of two). > In my opinion, the literal-block approach should be the most > reasonable choice here. Of course its your call which one > to choose. Yeah, that sounds reasonable. I will take a look. Thanks for the review! Cheers, Miguel
