From owner-freebsd-doc  Wed Jan  2 18: 6: 2 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Received: from heaven.gigo.com (gigo.com [207.173.11.186])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B180737B419
	for <doc@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed,  2 Jan 2002 18:05:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 200.181.48.138 (unknown [200.181.48.138])
	by heaven.gigo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13C5B8E3
	for <doc@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed,  2 Jan 2002 18:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 9741 invoked by uid 1001); 3 Jan 2002 01:54:58 -0000
Message-ID: <20020103015458.9740.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:54:36 -0200
From: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux@FreeBSD.org>
To: Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: <filename> -> <port> (<protocol>?)
References: <20011231100926.A3512@straylight.oblivion.bg> <20020102111934.B70243@clan.nothing-going-on.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20020102111934.B70243@clan.nothing-going-on.org>; from nik@FreeBSD.ORG on Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:19:34AM +0000
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.5-PRERELEASE
X-Disclaimer: I hope you find what you are looking for... in life :)
Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-doc.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-doc>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-doc>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

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 <filename> instead of <port> when referring
> > to a port?  If not, how about the attached patch?
>=20
> I'm still uneasy about <port>.  Apart from the ambiguous name:
>=20
>     <para>The webserver listens on port <port>80</port>.</para>
>=20
>     <para>The printer is connected to <port>lpt0</port>.</para>
>=20
> the rest of the world prefers the 'package' nomenclature.
>=20
> I'd be more comfortable with a=20
>=20
>     <filename class=3D"port">
>=20
> or
>=20
>     <filename class=3D"package">
>=20
> mechanism.  Or perhaps
>=20
>     <package category=3D"archivers">unzip</package>
>=20
> or even
>=20
>     <command package=3D"archivers/unzip">unzip</package>

	I tend to agree. The later mechanisms both are not ambiguous
and help in parsing.
	Now that we mention it. What about a <protocol></protocol>
tag?=20
	Furthermore, shouldn't we use more <acronym></acronym>?

	TCP,IRC,FTP are all protocols and acronyms....

	Regards,

--=20
Mario S F Ferreira - DF - Brazil - "I guess this is a signature."
Computer Science Undergraduate | FreeBSD Committer | CS Developer
flames to beloved devnull@someotherworldbeloworabove.org
feature, n: a documented bug | bug, n: an undocumented feature

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message