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
