Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 21:05:52 +0100 From: Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net> To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> Cc: doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Application and command names in <title> elements Message-ID: <20030519200552.GA74816@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20030519153048.51f20a06.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> References: <20030519192255.GB74434@submonkey.net> <20030519153048.51f20a06.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 03:30:48PM -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote: > On Mon, 19 May 2003 20:22:55 +0100 > Ceri Davies <ceri@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > I've been taking a high level look at getting all the <title> elements in > > the handbook ready for the 3rd edition (well, glimpse has been doing all > > the hard work so far), and I'm very tempted to religiously wrap all application > > and command names in the appropriate markup. > > > > Would anyone care to talk me out of it? > > I'd like to chime in here if you do not mind. While I was thinking > about this just last night, a question arose as to which is more appropriate: > <command> or manual page entities. > > <command>, and &man.REF;, to me, are ambiguous. For instance, we can wrap > the following in either command or &man entities: > > By using the &man.ssh.1; utility for remote network connections, you reduce > the risk of password theft. If you use a manpage entity more than once in close proximity, it starts to look silly, at least in HTML output. In general I think that's when <command> elements come in handy. Ceri -- [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+yTkgocfcwTS3JF8RAjVSAJ9xFOBeob0vBIjlM8KDVmaCULh3owCeKxMI Yk16QBcZtCKfjVtWjBVmw1k= =JLWh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030519200552.GA74816>