"Jason St. John" <jstjohn@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > + Backticks are used around options or commands: > + `--pretty=oneline` > + `git rev-list` I'd prefer to see the objective stated before a particular means to achieve it. I.e. not "backticks around options and commands", but "literal examples (e.g. use of command line options, command names and configuration variables) are typeset monospaced, and if you can use `backticks around word phrase`, do so.". > + Options or commands should use unescaped AsciiDoc: > + Correct: > + `--pretty=oneline` > + Incorrect: > + `\--pretty=oneline` I think it is wrong to single out "options or commands" here, and also it is wrong to say "unescaped". The "unescaped" is merely a consequence of combination between: http://www.methods.co.nz/asciidoc/asciidoc.css-embedded.html#_text_formatting Word phrases `enclosed in backtick characters` (grave accents) are also rendered in a monospaced font but in this case the enclosed text is rendered literally and is not subject to further expansion. and the use of `backticks` to achieve "literal examples are typeset monospaced" rule. If some place in the documentation needs to typeset a command use example with inline substitutions, it is fine to use +monospaced and inline substituted text+ instead of `monospaced literal text`, and with the former, we do need to quote the part we do not want to get substituted. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html