Content deleted Content added
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 25:
:: <font color="orange">This assessment appears to be incorrect and a non-issue. There is an entire Wikipedia article that both explains this fact and enumerates different syntaxes in exhaustive detail. Moreover, this particular article includes in relevant part:</font>
<font color="orange">
:: * The typographical conventions for specifying comments varies widely.
:: * Main article: Comparison of programming languages (syntax)#Comments (a cross-reference to the syntax differences article)
:: * The syntax and rules [are] usually defined in a programming language specification.
</font>
*If the categorisation of comments into prologue, inline, end-of line et al is significant, then it should be properly inroduced early in the article.
Line 34 ⟶ 36:
*Comments in web templates; HTML is not a programming language, so why is this included?
<font color="orange">
:: 1) HTML is not a programming language, however from an editorial standpoint, it is not unreasonable to treat HTML comments, markup language comments, configuration file comments and other such concepts as indistinct from those of programming languages.
:: 2) HTML comments routinely appear inside JSP (Java), ASP (VBscript, Javascript), ColdFusion and many other programming languages, and consequently it is a common requirement to know the correct syntax for both kinds of comments even in the context of a programming language (this assertion is supported by cited references in the article).
</font>
*"In between these views is the philosophy that comments are neither beneficial nor harmful by themselves ..." The word "philosophy" is being abused in this article. These are opinions, not philosphies.
:: <font color="orange">This issue has been addressed. The word philosophy, (which appeared only once in the prose of the article as far as I could see) was replaced with "assertions" (which are supported by references).</font>
*Potentially significant sections such as Metadata and annotations (which is completely uncited) do not adequately cover their topic, thus not meeting the GA broadness criterion.
| |||