Samuel Thibault wrote: > Justin B Rye, le Fri 07 Aug 2015 15:52:00 +0100, a écrit : >> It's not immediately obvious why we're going to the trouble of >> distinguishing <command> from <classname> (along with <filename>, >> <prompt>, <literal>, and who knows what else). I'm sure it's all >> lovely and semantic, but all we actually want is for them to be >> flagged as verbatim literal strings by appearing in the same >> nonproportional typeface. > > It makes a lot of sense to at least distinguish what the user types from > what the computer prompted. It also makes sense, for package names, to > put hyperlinks to package maintenance pages, or things like this. > > My 2¢ guesses,
<prompt> is only used for <prompt>#</prompt> versus <prompt>$</prompt> and <prompt>boot:</prompt>. Packagenames as hyperlinks to the PTS would be a nice idea, though it would require some work to tidy up uses of <classname> to the point where it can be relied on not to be a preseed parameter or D-I module name or something. Oh, maybe we could use the docbook 4.4 tag <package>: "http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/package.html";? That would certainly make it feel more useful. -- JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150807155118.ga5...@xibalba.demon.co.uk
