On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 11:32, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 11:23, Tammy Fox wrote:
> > For docs created for RHEL, etc. we decided that the URL should be part
> > of the text since when the decision was made we printed the docs. So,
> > our rule was, if the URL is short, it should be inline text. If it is
> > long and might line wrap, include it in screen tags so it is always
> > rendered on its own line.
>
> Would you say that the suggested usage is OK, since it is doubtful these
> manuals will be printed commercially? I would expect users *might* print
> them locally for reference, but most reading will be done online, I
> suspect, whether off a local hard disk (installed from a fedora-docs[1]
> RPM package) or the Internet.
>
Sure. I think most of the Fedora docs are going to be read from their
HTML versions. So, I don't see any problem with having the URLs rendered
as footnotes in the PDF versions. It might look a little weird if the
text inside the ulink tags is the actual URL, but I don't think that is
a big deal for the Fedora docs. I don't recall turning off footnotes in
the Fedora stylesheets, so I'll look at it to make sure it is still
rendering them for PDF versions.
Do we want the footnotes to show up in the HTML versions as well? I
don't think they do by default. My vote is not to show the footnotes in
the HTML.
Tammy
> If we can turn the footnote function back on for Fedora, that would be
> great IMHO. Also, I have another minor suggestion (I think for the
> stylesheets) which I will post to the list and bugzilla momentarily.
>
> = = = = =
> [1] Hmm, maybe fedora-docs-{html,pdf[,others?]}
>
Couldn't resist using a footnote in a post about footnotes huh? ;-)
Tammy
> --
> Paul W. Frields, RHCE
