On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
> >>with or without : ?
> >>
> >>Deep in my mind I remember Dams changed a couple of see also's to be written
> >>without :
> >
> > Officially it should be without. Hold off on any mass
> > changes though until the doc meeting figures out the
> > format for "See also" as rumor has it a new tag or
> > similar will exist for them.
>
> I hope we will be able to add a new structural element for that. That
> would help much in the rendering of the docs, as well as automatic
> discovery. :)
Adding our own things to docbook is not a good idea, as it will
need more modifications to our stylesheets. Also, it will make
it less flexible in cases like:
<para>
See also: <functiono>foo</function> for an example and
<function>foo2</function> for more information on blah.
</para>
I think we just should set a standard if we;'re going to add a : or not
(I don't really care, as long as it is consistent).
Derick
--
"Interpreting what the GPL actually means is a job best left to those
that read the future by examining animal entrails."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/
International PHP Magazine http://php-mag.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
