From owner-freebsd-doc Fri Jan 4 5:56:40 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from straylight.ringlet.net (discworld.nanolink.com [217.75.135.248]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A1C7737B41D for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 05:56:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 7897 invoked by uid 1000); 4 Jan 2002 13:55:16 -0000 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:55:16 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev To: "Bruce A. Mah" Cc: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira , Nik Clayton , doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -> (?) Message-ID: <20020104155516.B328@straylight.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: "Bruce A. Mah" , Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira , Nik Clayton , doc@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20011231100926.A3512@straylight.oblivion.bg> <20020102111934.B70243@clan.nothing-going-on.org> <20020103015458.9740.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> <200201030348.g033m3U15483@bmah.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200201030348.g033m3U15483@bmah.dyndns.org>; from bmah@FreeBSD.ORG on Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 07:48:02PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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 instead of when referring > > > > to a port? If not, how about the attached patch? > > > > > > I'm still uneasy about . Apart from the ambiguous name: > > > > > > The webserver listens on port 80. > > > > > > The printer is connected to lpt0. > > > > > > the rest of the world prefers the 'package' nomenclature. > > > > > > I'd be more comfortable with a > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism. Or perhaps > > > > > > unzip > > > > > > or even > > > > > > unzip > > > > I tend to agree. The later mechanisms both are not ambiguous > > and help in parsing. > > Now that we mention it. What about a > > tag? > > Furthermore, shouldn't we use more ? > > > > 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 but I didn't say > so at the time. Maybe I should have...although it'd be easy to switch > to something like . 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 and replacing it with class="package"> or some variant thereof. FWIW, I agree with this - and not just because it's my patch :) Yes, 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 .. with ..., if we are certain that this will catch *all* referrals to ports and packages. G'luck, Peter -- Do you think anybody has ever had *precisely this thought* before? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message