On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 14:54 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > 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. :) For networking, I'd bend on this one too. :-) -- 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
