On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 09:33 +1300, Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
> There's been a lot of churn in the documentation lately, IMHO not all of
> it useful. For instance, people have been going through replacing
> abbreviations (haven't, shouldn't) with the full words (have not, should
> not), reformatting HTML so that </p> tags are always on their own line,
It seems to me s/haven't/have not/g etc. is a good thing in a proper
written document! I don't care about </p> on its own line however.
> and substituting the '>' entity for '>'. None of these changes seem
> especially useful to me. The last change, in particular ('>' for '>')
> is unnecessary and makes embedded XML more difficult to read when you're
> looking at the "raw" document text (i.e., in a text editor rather than a
> browser).
I personally find the <xxx> harder to read than <xxx>. Clearly
YMMV. Whatever it is we need to be consistent, at least within each
document.
> I'd like to propose that people do not make arbitrary formatting changes
> in the documentation updates. If they're using a tool that forces such
> changes they should find a new tool, just as is the case with changes to
> the actual code.
Let's agree on the doc standards and put them up somewhere, maybe next
to the code standards.
Sanjiva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
