<command> vs <application>

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 14:54 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 16:48 -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > 
> > Hmm.. My concern about this is that since sometimes a prompt is
> > necessary eg to differentiate between stationX and stationY in a
> > networking example, we should always show a prompt. Otherwise it looks
> > wierd and inconsistent to have a prompt for some commands, but not for
> > others. 
> 
> Consistency is most important.
> 
> I think, for training docs, for example, it makes sense to show the
> prompt.  I am split about plain documentation.
> 
> We could have a standard like this:
> 
> * use full prompt [user at host] $ the first time or when you show the
> differences between hosts
> * use the $ or # to show the prompt, and also shows (traditional) UID 0
> v. other user
> 
> Personally, I'm going to get tired of including the prompt, but I got
> used to other stuff, so I won't complain. :)

For networking, I'd bend on this one too.  :-)

-- 
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/
-------------- 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/20050909/9933c920/attachment.bin