Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 19:48:02 -0800 From: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>, Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: <filename> -> <port> (<protocol>?) Message-ID: <200201030348.g033m3U15483@bmah.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20020103015458.9740.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> References: <20011231100926.A3512@straylight.oblivion.bg> <20020102111934.B70243@clan.nothing-going-on.org> <20020103015458.9740.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Bruce. 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?200201030348.g033m3U15483>