Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:55:16 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux@FreeBSD.ORG>, Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: <filename> -> <port> (<protocol>?) Message-ID: <20020104155516.B328@straylight.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <200201030348.g033m3U15483@bmah.dyndns.org>; from bmah@FreeBSD.ORG on Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 07:48:02PM -0800 References: <20011231100926.A3512@straylight.oblivion.bg> <20020102111934.B70243@clan.nothing-going-on.org> <20020103015458.9740.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> <200201030348.g033m3U15483@bmah.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 07:48:02PM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote: > If memory serves me right, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:19:34AM +0000, Nik Clayton wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 10:09:26AM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > > > Is there a reason to use <filename> instead of <port> when referring > > > > to a port? If not, how about the attached patch? > > > > > > I'm still uneasy about <port>. Apart from the ambiguous name: > > > > > > <para>The webserver listens on port <port>80</port>.</para> > > > > > > <para>The printer is connected to <port>lpt0</port>.</para> > > > > > > the rest of the world prefers the 'package' nomenclature. > > > > > > I'd be more comfortable with a > > > > > > <filename class="port"> > > > > > > or > > > > > > <filename class="package"> > > > > > > mechanism. Or perhaps > > > > > > <package category="archivers">unzip</package> > > > > > > or even > > > > > > <command package="archivers/unzip">unzip</package> > > > > I tend to agree. The later mechanisms both are not ambiguous > > and help in parsing. > > Now that we mention it. What about a <protocol></protocol> > > tag? > > Furthermore, shouldn't we use more <acronym></acronym>? > > > > TCP,IRC,FTP are all protocols and acronyms.... > > Waitasecond. I'm a little leery of adding a lot of Yet Another Element > as a non-standard FreeBSD extension to the DocBook DTD. > > I felt this way when someone introduced <port></port> but I didn't say > so at the time. Maybe I should have...although it'd be easy to switch > to something like <filename class="package"></filename>. Personally, > this is the solution I prefer. > > We should take roam's patch, to get the remaining package names into > compliance with our current convention. *Then* we should see about > getting rid of <port></port> and replacing it with <filename > class="package"> </filename> or some variant thereof. 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 -- Do you think anybody has ever had *precisely this thought* before? 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?20020104155516.B328>