Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:35:40 +0100 From: Marc Fonvieille <blackend@FreeBSD.org> To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security chapter.sgml Message-ID: <20031230193540.F90071@abigail.blackend.org> In-Reply-To: <20031230132034.36281ba6.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>; from trhodes@FreeBSD.org on Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 01:20:34PM -0500 References: <200312301749.hBUHnJjx004040@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031230132034.36281ba6.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 01:20:34PM -0500, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > > > - Use of &prompt.user; for % > > - Add a whitespace between prompt and command for consistency (this > > change could be done in a separate commit, but there the whitespace > > can be seen as content) > > - Use option tags for command line options instead of literal ones. > > Using option tags? I've been using literal for awhile since another > committer told me that they always use literal over option for > flags. Which one is preferred? > > FWIW, I think it was bmah who said that to me during my working > of the cron(8) section, but please don't quote me on that. :) > I see your point. Most of time I use literal tags but according to the FDP: "Use <option> to mark up a command's options." and the TDG tells us: "option identifies an optional argument to a software command." but I think our stylesheet renders option and literal in the same way. I'd use literal when I don't find a specific tag. Marc
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031230193540.F90071>