On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 13:27 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 15:57 -0400, Brad Smith wrote: > > > <screen> > > > <userinput><command>cd</command> <filename>foo</filename> > > > <command>./bar</command> <option>-o baaz</option> > > > <command>cat</command> <filename>baaz</filename></userinput> > > > <computeroutput>[contents of baaz]</computeroutput> > > > </screen> > > > > > > Another element missing from this, which it would be nice to adopt a > > standard for for consistency's sake, is the input prompt. The current > > GLS standard (as of last week) is: > > > > <prompt>[student@stationX ~]$</prompt> > > > > unless a different user, host or cwd is specifically warranted. The > > stationX has to do with the way systems are named in our classrooms > > (station1, station2, etc), so it might not make a good FDP or Red > > Hat-wide convention, but a standard of some sort would be good > > nonetheless. > > We've had a convention of not including the prompt at all. This is > different from other UNIX documentation. However, I don't think anyone > has complained. > > My guess is, the prompt was dropped for clarity sake? In RH docs, we > use <prompt> only when specifically discussing the prompt, otherwise > it's left out for visual clarity, I reckon. I agree with this usage convention. The prompt is distracting in a procedural guide unless the guidance is actually about the prompt. I could understand using a single '$' or '#' to differentiate "normal user" and "super user" commands, but *only* if (1) all the FDP docs do the same thing, and (2) each doc has boilerplate in the front that indicates what each means. Just my $0.02. -- 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/
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
