Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:51:28 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security chapter.sgml Message-ID: <20031230165128.7f4772aa.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20031230214617.GA37863@intruder.kitchenlab.org> References: <200312301749.hBUHnJjx004040@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031230132034.36281ba6.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <20031230214617.GA37863@intruder.kitchenlab.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:46:17 -0800 "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > If memory serves me right, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > [Taken off cvs-all since it's a -doc issue] > > > > 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. > > > > 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? > > > > 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. Well I didn't want to put words in your mouth that why I used 'I think' with a 'don't quote me' comment. :) -- Tom Rhodes
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031230165128.7f4772aa.trhodes>