Reviewing the use of admonitions

[Paul W. Frields]

On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 18:34 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 18:18 -0400, Eric Christensen wrote:
> > I agree with the info and note being close.  I do think that the caution
> > and warning could be defined differently.  IF I were defining them I say
> > that CAUTION meant that you can do this but shouldn't unless you have
> > experience and WARNING means don't do this because you are getting ready
> > to fry your system.  I wouldn't want to dilute the WARNING down as I
> > want users to really pay attention to what is being said there and not
> > just pass it by only to delete everything on their system inadvertently.
> > 
> > Just my 2 cents worth.
> 
> To which I would say, no one is worse off if the CAUTION becomes a
> WARNING, as opposed to the opposite.  People should, given your logic --
> with which I agree -- then be a little or a lot more careful than
> otherwise, making the admonition that much more effective.  I wouldn't
> want to dilute the WARNING; given a choice I'd prefer it.

I apologize, this is in a little conflict with the GDP guidelines.  But
you should note that they have redefined CAUTION to mean what WARNING
would have meant before, and exactly what you describe -- making this
discussion purely semantics. :-)

-- 
Paul W. Frields
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://paul.frields.org/   -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-------------- 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/20080723/ca675d04/attachment.sig>