Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 14:30:55 -0700 From: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.ORG>, Tom Hukins <tom@FreeBSD.ORG>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Web site not linking to porters-handbook Message-ID: <200109072130.f87LUtJ02431@intruder.bmah.org> In-Reply-To: <20010907212013.O66592@clan.nothing-going-on.org> References: <20010907152605.A43978@eborcom.com> <20010907171519.M66592@clan.nothing-going-on.org> <200109071630.f87GUS483800@intruder.bmah.org> <20010907212013.O66592@clan.nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_-616293971P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If memory serves me right, Nik Clayton wrote: > > Is there any preference on how new documents should refer to the FAQ and > > Handbook? (RELNOTESng uses full paths everywhere, or at least that was > > my intent.) > > Full paths. Way down my todo list is a sweep through the website to > make sure it's consistent about that. OK, sounds good. While we're on the subject of style in URLs, what about: http://www.FreeBSD.org/path/to/some/directory/ versus: http://www.FreeBSD.org/path/to/some/directory/index.html I've seen things both ways in the Web site, with what seems to be a preference for the latter for internal Web page references and the former for external references. Bruce. --==_Exmh_-616293971P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.3.1+ 05/14/2001 iD8DBQE7mTyP2MoxcVugUsMRAn/aAKCGFElqP4ZSMJyti7TGxnjM3Z7j1ACeLiS3 3BsS94wbC/NedBHAJucuQHA= =RcWx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-616293971P-- 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?200109072130.f87LUtJ02431>