Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:53:45 +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: <20020104175345.F328@straylight.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <20020104174942.E328@straylight.oblivion.bg>; from roam@ringlet.net on Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:49:42PM %2B0200 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> <20020104174942.E328@straylight.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:49:42PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: > 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 Make that docs/32468. I wonder how I managed to mess up typing a perfect sequence of even digits. > 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.. This one still applies :) G'luck, Peter -- Nostalgia ain't what it used to be. 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?20020104175345.F328>