Appropriate tags for service names and syslog facilties?

[Tammy Fox]

On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 16:01, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 05:05, Paul W. Frields wrote: 
> > I think you're looking for <command>. Since there's nothing more
> > appropriate, that's currently used not just for non-GUI apps, but also
> > configuration file options and daemons like services. I would expect for
> > now that you should use it for syslog facilities as well. If anyone
> > wants to differ, please feel free.
> > 
> > I do notice that a DocBook RFE at:
> > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=564776&group_id=21935&atid=384107
> > suggests that the more proper way to do this is
> > 
> > <application class="daemon">syslogd</application>
> > <application class="service">syslog</application>
> > <application class="service">kern.*</application>
> > 
> > That was the end of 2002, but a *really* quick check of the DocBook book
> > doesn't reveal anything more appropriate.
> 
> Unfortunately, it also doesn't reveal these classes being added to
> <application>.  Even though Norm Walsh made the final comment in your
> above link, saying:
> 
> "We'll add process, service, server, and daemon to class values. 
> This isn't the perfect solution, but it's a short-term answer."
> 
> Which sums up my feelings about it.  I'm unhappy using <command> for
> that which is not a command but in fact is an application launching a
> service thread.  I'd like us to use these new attributes for
> <application>, but it appears that they are not available[1].  Yet
> another XSL hack for the queue?
> 
> We could follow Norm Walsh's short-term solution, with the plan to fix
> the XSL or incorporate in a long-term solution when it arrives.  I
> mostly take that approach, except where the rendered format is too
> jarring and the stylesheet fix is non-trivial.  There are times when you
> have to choose what looks best in HTML and PDF and leave "do it right"
> for another time.  I'm not sure this is such a time.
> 
> The reason for having correct tagging even when it makes no difference
> in the output you are using is because you need to remain accessible for
> future output formats.  Imagine a stylesheet that renders a programming
> tutorial to Braille, grabbing <example>s that include <screen>,
> <computeroutput>, or <programlisting> and putting those directly to the
> Braille screen, with associated <para> sets and <xref>s on a separate
> Braille screen.  In other words, proper tagging supports accessibility. 
> 
> Since we are starting out from scratch with the Fedora docs project,
> this is an opportunity to "do it right" for DocBook in every way we can.
> 
> - Karsten
> 
> [1] Trying the new attributes with the DocBook in FC1 yields this in the
> HTML:
> 
> The XML:
> 
> <para>
>   This is a test of the various uses of <application>. Here is a 
>   class of <application class="daemon">daemon</application>, this is a
>   class of <application class="service">service</application>, and these
>   are regular <command>command</command> and
>   <application>application</application> for comparison.
> </para>
> 
> 
> The resulting HTML:
> <p>
> This is a test of the various uses of <application>. Here is a
> class of <b class="application">daemon</b>, this is a class of
> <b class="application">service</b>, and these are regular
> <tt class="command">command</tt> and <b class="application">application</b> 
> for comparison.
> </p>
> 
> Since I don't use HTML for email, I'll use a form of structured markup
> to show how the resulting HTML page looks in the Web browser:
> 
> This is a test of the various uses of <application>. Here is a class of
> b:daemon, this is a class of b:service, and these are regular tt:command
> and b:application for comparison.
> 
> Summary: the attributes were ignored, and all rendered with the default
> stylesheet for <application>, which is <b class="application">.  The
> resulting HTML is not-jarring, although the daemon, service and
> application are all in boldface, with the command in fixed-width font.
> 

When I was in RH Docs, we had the command versus application debate many
times over. ;-) Basically, my reasoning for ultimately deciding to use
command tags for services, daemons, and the like was because I think of
an application as something that has an interface other than the command
line -- GUI or at least a TUI. If you use a class of an application, it
gets marked as bold using our stylesheets instead of a mono font. I know
DocBook is about removing yourself from the style, but you have to
consider it as well. To the reader, IMO it is more fitting to use the
same style for commands, services, daemons, etc. and leave the very
noticeable bold style for application names such as Mozilla and GAIM. Of
course, you could probably change the stylesheet to use bold for
application tags with no class and a mono font for words tagged as an
application with certain classes.

My 2 cents,
Tammy