> > I'm against it too. Most of docs already use <literal> and
What is now used, is IMO not really relevant.
> > I think Goba's right with TRUE not being a constant anymore.
>
> Well, it is listed as a constant is the source, but I
> can only say, I don't think of it as a constant.
You're right, technically it is a constant, but indeed it's better to NOT
see it as a constant.
However, using the <constant> tag doesn't put a balloon above it 'this is a
constant'. As I see it, you use the xml-tags that *at best* reflect the
meaning/intention of what is there. And in this light, I still believe (yes,
I'm quite stubborn) that the <constant> tag is most appropriate, because it
reflects the intention of it best (it still is a named value which never
changes, i.e. constant). If there were a tag <keyword>... (there is, but not
in this context).
> > I would like to point out that spotting all True/FALse occurrences
> > and turning them into tagged version would bring consistancy to
> > docs, which is far beyond turning all literal -> constant.
That is most important.
> Well, anyway it is a good thing (TM) to bring consistancy to
> the docs, and please do not forget about changing this.
> Isn't there any other useful docbook tag for TRUE and FALSE?
I've looked at the ref, I can't find anything :(
And how about the suggestion to use &true;, &false;, and &null;, and define
those entities to be what it should be? That is usually the easiest typing,
I think. And when you decide that it maybe should be <constant
class='language'>TRUE</contant>, or the same with literal, it saves you a
lot op typing.
> Goba
Jeroen
