docbook: markup for debian package names
Subject:
Re: markup for debian package names
From:
Tabatha Marshall ####@####.####
Date:
17 Jun 2003 05:15:57 -0000
Message-Id: <1055827152.8008.29.camel@mysticchild>
On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 22:02, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 07:23:18PM -0700, Tabatha Marshall wrote:
> > That's a tough call. An "application" is the name of a program, but if
> > you can type in the name of the program and run it, it's a "command."
> > However, since everything in Linux is a file, it's also a "filename!"
>
> I'm still not entirely sure what to do with debian packages.
>
> In the mean time I've made the following convention for myself: if I'm referring to
> something that I can get manpages for then I call it an <application>. If
> I'm referring to actually typing the word in at the prompt then I call it
> a <command>.
Looks like you've exercised good judgment to me! :D
The LDP wouldn't ever get too picky over things like that. You could
always explain the use of your conventions if a reviewer ever brought it
up. Personally, I'm always pleased when an author takes the initiative
and uses the tags that are available. I try not to change things when I
see it consistently throughout the source.
Your convention is thought out and makes perfect sense.
I took a look at what you have so far. I haven't seen a lot of notes
done as entities, they're usually done inline (and LDP has graphics for
that...I have a copy of them locally if you don't but want to see 'em),
but that's NOT to say it's wrong...just different!
Looking forward to seeing your submission come through when it's all
ready!
Tab
--
Tabatha Marshall
Web: www.merlinmonroe.com
Linux Documentation Project Review Coordinator (http://www.tldp.org)
Linux Counter Area Manager US:wa (http://counter.li.org)
