From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 21 21:30:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E41591A for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 21:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C81D2253 for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 21:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s4LLU0GW016443 for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 21:30:00 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id s4LLU0HO016441; Wed, 21 May 2014 21:30:00 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 21:30:00 GMT Message-Id: <201405212130.s4LLU0HO016441@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Mark Linimon Subject: Re: docs/188786: Bug in inet(3) man page (inet_aton()) Reply-To: Mark Linimon X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 21:30:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR docs/188786; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mark Linimon To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: docs/188786: Bug in inet(3) man page (inet_aton()) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 16:21:16 -0500 ----- Forwarded message from "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" ----- Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 07:30:18 +0200 From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" To: bjk@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/188786: Bug in inet(3) man page (inet_aton()) Ben, Okay -- I see what you mean--I was focused on that one piece, and didn't note the other uses of "network address". I think that what makes the page a little confusing is that it uses both terms "Internet address" and "network address" without making it clear that they are synonymous (and thus leaving the potential for the reader to think they are not). This might not normally be problematic, but given that the page is also talking about the 'network' and 'host' components of the address, there is scope for confusion. Not a big thing, I guess, but FWIW that's the confusion that I tried to avoid in the Linux man page by using the term "binary address"; see http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/inet.3.html#DESCRIPTION Cheers, Michael ----- End forwarded message -----