Submitted Document Bugid: 156771

[Karsten Wade]

On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 01:46 -0500, Thomas Jones wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> As per a recent conversation, I have generated a patch for the general
> entity file --- fedora-entities-en.xml.
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156771
> 
> There were a great many changes that I have made. Not all may be
> accepted into CVS; but I believe that these changes provide good value
> to the project.

Most surely will.  This is great work, thanks.

As you know, work on a good entities scheme at the beginning will save
hours of work in the future.

I strongly encourage everyone to review these proposed changes,
especially if you have written with DocBook before.

> As you review the changes, please keep the following "open" issues in mind:
> - this file is incorrectly identified as xml. When in fact, it does not
> contain any XML markup at all. Just a thought. In keeping with
> standardization, it should be something like en.fedora.dbgenent.ent.
> But, thats just personal preference. ;)

dbgenent?

Otherwise, yeah, I've seen the *.ent designation before, that makes
sense.

> - if the "bluecurve" entity is accepted; does the <interfacedefinition/>
> element suffice as the parent node with its expected context?

I don't see that element, do you mean <interfacename>?  Regardless, AIUI
that is an interface for OO programming and not a user interface.  I
would capitalize "Bluecurve" and leave it alone without a special tag,
after all, it's just a name.

> - if the "rpm" entity is accepted; what is its legal status? registered
> or trademark?

Not sure, but I think it's irrelevant.

My understanding is that we may replace most of the legal trademark
boilerplate with a line like this:

"All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners."

I'll hunt up a better sentence than that one.

I had this confirmed from Red Hat legal last year.

After you have properly attributed a trademark in the boilerplate, you
can use the mark in the text without a (TM) or (R).  However, you -must-
use the term properly, e.g.:

Red Hat -not- RedHat
FireWire -not- firewire
RPM -not- rpm
etc.

This is a best effort thing, anyone who finds an improper spelling of a
trademark should just file a bug report. :)

BTW, Red Hat style is to usually to refer to "software packages" and not
call them "RPMs".  I agree because it keeps things generic and not using
jargon unnecessarily.

> - i neglected to utilize the common ISO entity declarations for
> readability. New authors find it difficult to read if utilized; yet
> translators probably need the ISO declarations. I prefer ISO --- but
> then again i am weird. ;)

How about we do this in two passes?  Get all the details worked out,
then consider ISO entity declarations.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint:  2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115    5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41   
                       Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/attachments/20050504/de3093c5/attachment.bin