<command> vs <application>

Karsten Wade kwade at redhat.com
Thu Sep 8 21:54:53 UTC 2005


On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 16:48 -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> > We've had a convention of not including the prompt at all.  This is
> > different from other UNIX documentation.  However, I don't think anyone
> > has complained.
> > 
> > My guess is, the prompt was dropped for clarity sake?  In RH docs, we
> > use <prompt> only when specifically discussing the prompt, otherwise
> > it's left out for visual clarity, I reckon.
> 
> 
> Hmm.. My concern about this is that since sometimes a prompt is
> necessary eg to differentiate between stationX and stationY in a
> networking example, we should always show a prompt. Otherwise it looks
> wierd and inconsistent to have a prompt for some commands, but not for
> others. 

Consistency is most important.

I think, for training docs, for example, it makes sense to show the
prompt.  I am split about plain documentation.

We could have a standard like this:

* use full prompt [user at host] $ the first time or when you show the
differences between hosts
* use the $ or # to show the prompt, and also shows (traditional) UID 0
v. other user

Personally, I'm going to get tired of including the prompt, but I got
used to other stuff, so I won't complain. :)

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint:  2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115    5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41   
                       Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20050908/cbadc076/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-docs-list mailing list