Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:44:20 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: Christian Brueffer <chris@unixpages.org> Cc: FreeBSD-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Proposed addition to the mail section of the handbook Message-ID: <20031202114420.00233193.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20031202162745.GE71732@unixpages.org> References: <3FCBB04F.7070204@potentialtech.com> <20031201221825.GB10158@jenny.daemon.li> <20031202053708.GC71732@unixpages.org> <20031202090021.GA269@jenny.daemon.li> <20031202112217.23a48871.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <20031202162745.GE71732@unixpages.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:27:45 +0100 Christian Brueffer <chris@unixpages.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:22:17AM -0500, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:00:21 +0100 > > Josef El-Rayes <j.el-rayes@daemon.li> wrote: > > > > > Christian Brueffer <chris@unixpages.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 11:18:25PM +0100, Josef El-Rayes wrote: > > > > > > > > line 72: it is "manpage" not "man page". > > > > > > > Actually it is 'manual page'. > > > > > > i prefer too, the expression 'manual page', but as > > > bill used the short form, i just wanted to point out > > > that o'reilly writes it 'manpage' and not 'man page'. > > > > > > (http://www.oreilly.com/oreilly/author/stylesheet.html#M). > > > > It always depends on who you talk to too. Some people say man > > page, some use manual page, some use manpage. Trust me, this > > is a bikeshed you don't want to step into... :) > > > > Of course. What I meant to say was 'manual page is what we usually use > for our documentation' :-) I like manual page as well. This was probably keramida's fault now that I think about it... :P -- Tom Rhodes
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031202114420.00233193.trhodes>