On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 13:27 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 15:57 -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> > <screen>
> > <userinput><command>cd</command>
<filename>foo</filename>
> > <command>./bar</command> <option>-o baaz</option>
> > <command>cat</command>
<filename>baaz</filename></userinput>
> > <computeroutput>[contents of baaz]</computeroutput>
> > </screen>
>
>
> Another element missing from this, which it would be nice to adopt a
> standard for for consistency's sake, is the input prompt. The current
> GLS standard (as of last week) is:
>
> <prompt>[student@stationX ~]$</prompt>
>
> unless a different user, host or cwd is specifically warranted. The
> stationX has to do with the way systems are named in our classrooms
> (station1, station2, etc), so it might not make a good FDP or Red
> Hat-wide convention, but a standard of some sort would be good
> nonetheless.
We've had a convention of not including the prompt at all. This is
different from other UNIX documentation. However, I don't think anyone
has complained.
My guess is, the prompt was dropped for clarity sake? In RH docs, we
use <prompt> only when specifically discussing the prompt, otherwise
it's left out for visual clarity, I reckon.
I agree with this usage convention. The prompt is distracting in a
procedural guide unless the guidance is actually about the prompt. I
could understand using a single '$' or '#' to differentiate "normal
user" and "super user" commands, but *only* if (1) all the FDP docs do
the same thing, and (2) each doc has boilerplate in the front that
indicates what each means. Just my $0.02.
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE
http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Documentation Project:
http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/