On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 18:34 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 18:18 -0400, Eric Christensen wrote: > > I agree with the info and note being close. I do think that the caution > > and warning could be defined differently. IF I were defining them I say > > that CAUTION meant that you can do this but shouldn't unless you have > > experience and WARNING means don't do this because you are getting ready > > to fry your system. I wouldn't want to dilute the WARNING down as I > > want users to really pay attention to what is being said there and not > > just pass it by only to delete everything on their system inadvertently. > > > > Just my 2 cents worth. > > To which I would say, no one is worse off if the CAUTION becomes a > WARNING, as opposed to the opposite. People should, given your logic -- > with which I agree -- then be a little or a lot more careful than > otherwise, making the admonition that much more effective. I wouldn't > want to dilute the WARNING; given a choice I'd prefer it. I apologize, this is in a little conflict with the GDP guidelines. But you should note that they have redefined CAUTION to mean what WARNING would have meant before, and exactly what you describe -- making this discussion purely semantics. :-) -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
