Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:46:18 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes <darklogik@pittgoth.com> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> Cc: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.ORG>, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux@FreeBSD.ORG>, Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: <filename> -> <port> (<protocol>?) Message-ID: <3C35CE4A.40904@pittgoth.com> References: <20011231100926.A3512@straylight.oblivion.bg> <20020102111934.B70243@clan.nothing-going-on.org> <20020103015458.9740.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> <200201030348.g033m3U15483@bmah.dyndns.org> <20020104155516.B328@straylight.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 07:48:02PM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote: > >>If memory serves me right, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote: >> >>>On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:19:34AM +0000, Nik Clayton wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 10:09:26AM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: >>>> >>>>>Is there a reason to use <filename> instead of <port> when referring >>>>>to a port? If not, how about the attached patch? >>>>> >>>>I'm still uneasy about <port>. Apart from the ambiguous name: >>>> >>>> <para>The webserver listens on port <port>80</port>.</para> >>>> >>>> <para>The printer is connected to <port>lpt0</port>.</para> >>>> >>>>the rest of the world prefers the 'package' nomenclature. >>>> >>>>I'd be more comfortable with a >>>> >>>> <filename class="port"> >>>> >>>>or >>>> >>>> <filename class="package"> >>>> >>>>mechanism. Or perhaps >>>> >>>> <package category="archivers">unzip</package> >>>> >>>>or even >>>> >>>> <command package="archivers/unzip">unzip</package> >>>> >>> I tend to agree. The later mechanisms both are not ambiguous >>>and help in parsing. >>> Now that we mention it. What about a <protocol></protocol> >>>tag? >>> Furthermore, shouldn't we use more <acronym></acronym>? >>> >>> TCP,IRC,FTP are all protocols and acronyms.... >>> >>Waitasecond. I'm a little leery of adding a lot of Yet Another Element >>as a non-standard FreeBSD extension to the DocBook DTD. >> >>I felt this way when someone introduced <port></port> but I didn't say >>so at the time. Maybe I should have...although it'd be easy to switch >>to something like <filename class="package"></filename>. Personally, >>this is the solution I prefer. >> >>We should take roam's patch, to get the remaining package names into >>compliance with our current convention. *Then* we should see about >>getting rid of <port></port> and replacing it with <filename >>class="package"> </filename> or some variant thereof. >> > > FWIW, I agree with this - and not just because it's my patch :) > Yes, <port> is misleading; yes, we should think of something better; > but when we do, it will be much, much easier to do a mass-replace > of <port>..</port> with <something role="better">...</something>, > if we are certain that this will catch *all* referrals to ports and > packages. > > G'luck, > Peter > > cat chapter.sgml | sed "s/\<port\>//g" | sed "s/\<\\/port\>//g" > chapter.sgml.new && mv chapter.sgml chapter.old then just move chapter.sgml.new to chapter.sgml or add another && mv command in the section above to do it all in one swift stroke. Maywbe an awk scrip would do the trick on this also :) opinions? That will just be a quick clean to the <port>...</port> reference, I used it before in an sgml doc, and noticed that it saved me alot of time cleaning up and changing tags. -- Tom (Darklogik) Rhodes www.Pittgoth.com Gothic Liberation Front www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C35CE4A.40904>