cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security chapter.sgml

[Tom Rhodes]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:35:40 +0100
Marc Fonvieille <blackend at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 01:20:34PM -0500, Tom Rhodes wrote:
> > >   
> > >   - Use of &prompt.user; for %
> > >   - Add a whitespace between prompt and command for consistency (this
> > >     change could be done in a separate commit, but there the whitespace
> > >     can be seen as content)
> > >   - 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.  :)
> >
> 
> I see your point.  Most of time I use literal tags but according to the
> FDP:
> 
> "Use <option> to mark up a command's options."
> 
> and the TDG tells us:
> 
> "option identifies an optional argument to a software command."
> 
> but I think our stylesheet renders option and literal in the same way.
> 
> I'd use literal when I don't find a specific tag.

I don't have my copy of Docbook TDG with me at the office, but
isn't there a <flags> option also?

Being the nerd that I am, i'll point at the computer science
definition of literal:

A letter or symbol that stands for itself as opposed to a feature,
function, or entity associated with it in a programming language.

Then option is just something chosen or available as a choice.

I'm not saying we should go sweeping through and setting a
standard; I just want to use the best and most correct tag.

I would like to hear more input from the -doc team about
my perhaps meaningless question.

-- 
Tom Rhodes