Re: <command> vs <application>

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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@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/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-- 

fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: 
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Red Hat 9]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux