Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:49:42 +0200
From:      Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>
To:        Tom Rhodes <darklogik@pittgoth.com>
Cc:        "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.ORG>, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux@FreeBSD.ORG>, Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: <filename> -> <port> (<protocol>?)
Message-ID:  <20020104174942.E328@straylight.oblivion.bg>
In-Reply-To: <3C35CE4A.40904@pittgoth.com>; from darklogik@pittgoth.com on Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 10:46:18AM -0500
References:  <20011231100926.A3512@straylight.oblivion.bg> <20020102111934.B70243@clan.nothing-going-on.org> <20020103015458.9740.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> <200201030348.g033m3U15483@bmah.dyndns.org> <20020104155516.B328@straylight.oblivion.bg> <3C35CE4A.40904@pittgoth.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 10:46:18AM -0500, Tom Rhodes wrote:
> Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > 
> > FWIW, I agree with this - and not just because it's my patch :)
> > Yes, <port> is misleading; yes, we should think of something better;
> > but when we do, it will be much, much easier to do a mass-replace
> > of <port>..</port> with <something role="better">...</something>,
> > if we are certain that this will catch *all* referrals to ports and
> > packages.
> > 
> > G'luck,
> > Peter
> > 
> > 
> 
> cat chapter.sgml | sed "s/\<port\>//g" | sed "s/\<\\/port\>//g" > 
> chapter.sgml.new && mv chapter.sgml chapter.old
> 
> then just move chapter.sgml.new to chapter.sgml or add another && mv 
> command in the section above to do it all in one swift stroke.  Maywbe 
> an awk scrip would do the trick on this also  :)   opinions?
> 
> That will just be a quick clean to the <port>...</port> reference, I 
> used it before in an sgml doc, and noticed that it saved me alot of time 
> cleaning up and changing tags.

Errr...  I believe that Nik's original objection was not to the <port>
tag in general (as something which marks a port and adds a hyperlink
to the port's description and stuff), but to the poor choice of naming
(as something which introduces a semantical conflict with the lot of
other uses of the word 'port' WRT computer science).  Just removing
the <port> tags would not make things better in any way, IMHO; replacing
the <port> tags with something more appropriately named and more easily
extensible (see PR docs/32478 for an example of how the <port> tag is
currently unable to link to a description file which is not named pkg-descr)
would help us all move one step closer to a perfectly documented world :)

Oh, and I guess I need to go get another Coke and start writing in
reasonably-sized sentences..

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
I had to translate this sentence into English because I could not read the original Sanskrit.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020104174942.E328>