draft notice text

[Paul W. Frields]

On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 12:24, Tammy Fox wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 11:32, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 11:23, Tammy Fox wrote:
> > > For docs created for RHEL, etc. we decided that the URL should be part
> > > of the text since when the decision was made we printed the docs. So,
> > > our rule was, if the URL is short, it should be inline text. If it is
> > > long and might line wrap, include it in screen tags so it is always
> > > rendered on its own line.
> > 
> > Would you say that the suggested usage is OK, since it is doubtful these
> > manuals will be printed commercially? I would expect users *might* print
> > them locally for reference, but most reading will be done online, I
> > suspect, whether off a local hard disk (installed from a fedora-docs[1]
> > RPM package) or the Internet.
> > 
> 
> Sure. I think most of the Fedora docs are going to be read from their
> HTML versions. So, I don't see any problem with having the URLs rendered
> as footnotes in the PDF versions. It might look a little weird if the
> text inside the ulink tags is the actual URL, but I don't think that is
> a big deal for the Fedora docs. I don't recall turning off footnotes in
> the Fedora stylesheets, so I'll look at it to make sure it is still
> rendering them for PDF versions.

Thanks, I haven't had a chance yet.

> Do we want the footnotes to show up in the HTML versions as well? I
> don't think they do by default. My vote is not to show the footnotes in
> the HTML.

I agree.

> > If we can turn the footnote function back on for Fedora, that would be
> > great IMHO. Also, I have another minor suggestion (I think for the
> > stylesheets) which I will post to the list and bugzilla momentarily.
> > 
> > = = = = =
> > [1] Hmm, maybe fedora-docs-{html,pdf[,others?]}
> > 
> Couldn't resist using a footnote in a post about footnotes huh? ;-)

No, but fortunately I *could* resist doing it in this reply to a post
about a footnote in a post about footnotes! (Sorry, loopy from lack of
lunch.[1])

= = = = =
[1] Should that be a new acronym, "LLL"?  Oh no, I broke my vow of
footnotelessness! AAAAGGHH! :-(   :-D

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE