Apologies for the lateness of this reply; my email has been down since
about Friday evening. If this reply comes to you with a funny
address, I'm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 08:22:56AM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> > appropriate extension. For example, there is the directory
> >
> > /oswg/en_GB.ISO_8859-1/books/linux-c-programming
> >
> > When there's a document actually there, it will be
> >
> > /oswg/en_GB.ISO_8859-1/books/linux-c-programming/linux-c-programming.sgml
>
> IMHO, bad idea. You've already got the name of the file in the directory,
> duplicating it doesn't buy you anything. We found it was simpler to use a
> common source name (book.sgml or article.sgml). Of course, YMMV.
I couldn't see much convincing argument for going one way or the
other. What eentually decided me to duplicate the directory name is
my experience editing web sites using emacs. Generally I wind up with
13 buffers called things like "index.html<7>" and get lost as to which
one I'm supposed to be dealing with
It's not a _particularly_ great decision criterion, but I don't see
much of an argument against either. Does anyone else have a view?
-dan
