> Now you made me curious on how old are you. :)
almost 18 :)

> >>>- additional entities for a better consistency (&php; for
> >>>  <literal>PHP</literal> for example, which will fix [1]
> >>
> >>Why is PHP a literal? It could be a <productname> or something but why a
> >>literal? BTW I am not entirely sure that an entitiy is needed for this.
> >>I would be fine with the style "PHP 4.2.0" without entities.
> >
> > I think that there is no need to have <literal>PHP</literal> as an
entity. I
> > think we could use just PHP and get ride of those entities.
> > Just check the migration5.xml appendice in livedocs and wou will see how
> > horrible PHP is formated.
>
> It is not just the format, but the meaning as well. Literal is not meant
> to be used for 'product names' AFAIK.

>From the manual:
"A Literal is some specific piece of data, taken literally, from a computer
system. It is similar in some ways to UserInput and ComputerOutput, but is
somewhat more of a general classification. The sorts of things that
constitute literals varies by domain."

So <literal> isn't the best choice!!


> SF does not allow you to host some website which is not closely related
> to the project you run on SF. We are not going to move the CVS to
> SF.net, so it is not justifyable to put any services there. It does not
> fit into the terms of service AFAIK.

Of course we aren't going to move CVS to SF.net servers, but...
We need a server to at least test livedocs. As belong to a big open source
project... Let's wait for their answer!

Nuno

Reply via email to