Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:46:17 -0800 From: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.org> To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security chapter.sgml Message-ID: <20031230214617.GA37863@intruder.kitchenlab.org> In-Reply-To: <20031230132034.36281ba6.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> References: <200312301749.hBUHnJjx004040@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031230132034.36281ba6.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If memory serves me right, Tom Rhodes wrote: > [Taken off cvs-all since it's a -doc issue] >=20 > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:49:19 -0800 (PST) > Marc Fonvieille <blackend@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > - Use option tags for command line options instead of literal ones. >=20 > Using option tags? I've been using literal for awhile since another > committer told me that they always use literal over option for > flags. Which one is preferred? >=20 > FWIW, I think it was bmah who said that to me during my working > of the cron(8) section, but please don't quote me on that. :) Hmmm...I don't *think* that was me but I'm not sure. I use <option></option> for marking up "those optional things you put on a command line that usually start with a dash". I use <literal></literal> as a fallback for other things, same as a couple of other people have already said. Bruce. --HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/8fIo2MoxcVugUsMRAgNhAJ47byLyBBkLwJuYd40zhnZanrzizACfSP74 qi+G36IiPdnK1WY/CvtJSSI= =YgUq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031230214617.GA37863>