Re: proofreading the installation-guide
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Justin B Rye, le Fri 07 Aug 2015 15:52:00 +0100, a écrit :
>> It's not immediately obvious why we're going to the trouble of
>> distinguishing <command> from <classname> (along with <filename>,
>> <prompt>, <literal>, and who knows what else). I'm sure it's all
>> lovely and semantic, but all we actually want is for them to be
>> flagged as verbatim literal strings by appearing in the same
>> nonproportional typeface.
>
> It makes a lot of sense to at least distinguish what the user types from
> what the computer prompted. It also makes sense, for package names, to
> put hyperlinks to package maintenance pages, or things like this.
>
> My 2¢ guesses,
<prompt> is only used for <prompt>#</prompt> versus <prompt>$</prompt>
and <prompt>boot:</prompt>.
Packagenames as hyperlinks to the PTS would be a nice idea, though it
would require some work to tidy up uses of <classname> to the point
where it can be relied on not to be a preseed parameter or D-I module
name or something. Oh, maybe we could use the docbook 4.4 tag
<package>: "http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/package.html";? That
would certainly make it feel more useful.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: