<command> vs <application>
Paul W. Frields
stickster at gmail.com
Sat Sep 10 01:12:13 UTC 2005
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 14:54 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> 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. :)
For networking, I'd bend on this one too. :-)
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
-------------- 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/20050909/9933c920/attachment.sig>
More information about the fedora-docs-list
mailing list