docbook: markup for debian package names


Previous by date: 17 Jun 2003 16:21:36 -0000 Re: markup for debian package names, Martin A. Brown
Next by date: 17 Jun 2003 16:21:36 -0000 resources section?, Emma Jane Hogbin
Previous in thread: 17 Jun 2003 16:21:36 -0000 Re: markup for debian package names, Martin A. Brown
Next in thread: 17 Jun 2003 16:21:36 -0000 Re: markup for debian package names, Tabatha Marshall

Subject: Re: markup for debian package names
From: Emma Jane Hogbin ####@####.####
Date: 17 Jun 2003 16:21:36 -0000
Message-Id: <20030617162134.GN852@xtrinsic.com>

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 01:35:19AM -0500, Martin A. Brown wrote:
>  : also compile from source. If you do get <application>acpi</application>
>  : installed you can use it to monitor your system like this: <command>acpi
>  : <parameter>-V</parameter></command>
>  :
<snip>
> Because "-V" is a command-line option passed to the "acpi" binary,
> I'd suggest this instead:
>   <command>acpi <option>-V</option></command>

Fixed these.

>  : <option>. Another example of option would be:
>  : 	<command>vi <option>filename</option></command>

Changed this to <filename> (instead of option).

>  : <command>dmesg
>  :     <option>| grep ACPI.*Subsystem\ revision</option></command>
> 
> I think you mean "option" only in the sense of "optional".  There is
> a DocBook tag "optional", which may be what you intend here.
> Because "grep" is a command in its own right, it doesn't strike me
> as an accurate way to mark up the text.

Totally re-wrote this one to:
<userinput>
        <command>dmesg</command> |
        <command>grep <parameter>ACPI.*Subsystem\ revision</parameter></command>
</userinput>

> I looked it over briefly, and it validates pretty well as XML (I
> don't know how to do the SGML stuff), but I did find to oddities you
> may wish to examine.
> You have two "</articleinfo>" tags, one at line 37 and one at line
> 50.
> You have no "</revision>" tag after line 42 (and before line 43).

Fixed, thank you.

> Now, I have to say--that's starting to look like some good
> DocBook--sure there's a bit more to go before you are done, but it
> looks (generally) pretty good to me.

Thanks :)

> I'd love to know (if you feel like sharing your experience) how much
> time you spent learning the DocBook structure and tags, and how
> difficult the experience was.

So far I've probably spent about 6 hours on it. Which is about 4 hours
more than I thought it would take me. Part of the problem for me is having
to figure out what markup I should/could be using for things that there
are no equivalent HTML tags for. I actually teach XHTML, CSS and
Javascript at the community college level. The concept of markup and
checking to see what the required structure for elements is very easy for
me. Finding an appropriate model has been much more difficult.

This is a useful page:
http://tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/writing-docbook.html
but it doesn't have most of the examples that I needed help with.

One thing about that file shouldn't 
Directories	
<filename id="directory">directory</filename>

be class="directory", not id="directory"? ids ought to be unique on the
page....
http://www.docbook.org/tdg/simple/en/html/filename.html

emma

-- 
Emma Jane Hogbin
[[ 416 417 2868 ][ www.xtrinsic.com ]]

Previous by date: 17 Jun 2003 16:21:36 -0000 Re: markup for debian package names, Martin A. Brown
Next by date: 17 Jun 2003 16:21:36 -0000 resources section?, Emma Jane Hogbin
Previous in thread: 17 Jun 2003 16:21:36 -0000 Re: markup for debian package names, Martin A. Brown
Next in thread: 17 Jun 2003 16:21:36 -0000 Re: markup for debian package names, Tabatha Marshall


  ©The Linux Documentation Project, 2014. Listserver maintained by dr Serge Victor on ibiblio.org servers. See current spam statz.