From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 12 12:50:21 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EE616A41F for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:50:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0408443D45 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:50:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j8CCoKLZ044635 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:50:20 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j8CCoKwg044634; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:50:20 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:50:20 GMT Message-Id: <200509121250.j8CCoKwg044634@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org From: Pierre Riteau Cc: Subject: Re: docs/85928: [patch] typo in ftp-primer (en_US.ISO8859-1) X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Pierre Riteau List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:50:21 -0000 The following reply was made to PR docs/85928; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Pierre Riteau To: Yar Tikhiy Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/85928: [patch] typo in ftp-primer (en_US.ISO8859-1) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:42:40 +0200 2005/9/12, Yar Tikhiy : > You seem to be missing the whole point. It is an _example_ of raw > HTML source to show to the reader of fdp-primer. Oh, now I get it. I was totally misunderstanding the purpose of this example. The fact that it was not easy to read made me think that it was a mistake. So the french documents is right too. I'm so sorry... Thank you for explaining me clearly why I was totally wrong, and I'm sorry I wasted your time so much. > P.S. I'd rather kill the sentence saying, "Note that the

element > is not required in the single paragraph case." First, it is a bogus > statement in the presence of CSS. Second, we'll have nothing to argue > over then ;-) I'm far from being an expert in HTML/CSS, I want to be sure I am understanding well. What do you mean by "style elements implicitly associated with the

tag" ? Pierre