From e947fb2111c575b6005c9a291c25d85a959e8b1f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Malcolm Tredinnick Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:30:01 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Fixed #2769 -- Applied some ReST formatting fixes. Thanks, ramiro. git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@3774 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37 --- AUTHORS | 1 + docs/db-api.txt | 2 +- docs/forms.txt | 6 +++--- 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/AUTHORS b/AUTHORS index bad8008d86a..9318c2aeca6 100644 --- a/AUTHORS +++ b/AUTHORS @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ answer newbie questions, and generally made Django that much better: Daniel Poelzleithner J. Rademaker Michael Radziej + ramiro Brian Ray rhettg@gmail.com Oliver Rutherfurd diff --git a/docs/db-api.txt b/docs/db-api.txt index bd178dbd7dd..7800ff324a4 100644 --- a/docs/db-api.txt +++ b/docs/db-api.txt @@ -1511,7 +1511,7 @@ Many-to-many relationships -------------------------- Both ends of a many-to-many relationship get automatic API access to the other -end. The API works just as a "backward" one-to-many relationship. See _Backward +end. The API works just as a "backward" one-to-many relationship. See Backward_ above. The only difference is in the attribute naming: The model that defines the diff --git a/docs/forms.txt b/docs/forms.txt index d6ef6f791bd..0d492ad7eef 100644 --- a/docs/forms.txt +++ b/docs/forms.txt @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ template:: {% endblock %} Before we get back to the problems with these naive set of views, let's go over -some salient points of the above template:: +some salient points of the above template: * Field "widgets" are handled for you: ``{{ form.field }}`` automatically creates the "right" type of widget for the form, as you can see with the @@ -148,8 +148,8 @@ some salient points of the above template:: If you must use tables, use tables. If you're a semantic purist, you can probably find better HTML than in the above template. - * To avoid name conflicts, the ``id``s of form elements take the form - "id_*fieldname*". + * To avoid name conflicts, the ``id`` values of form elements take the + form "id_*fieldname*". By creating a creation form we've solved problem number 3 above, but we still don't have any validation. Let's revise the validation issue by writing a new