Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 27 2017, Russ Allbery wrote (to 601...@bugs.debian.org):
>> Tiny formatting nit: I usually prefer to put the double-colon at the
>> end of the previous paragraph when the literal text is introduced
>> explicitly by that package, instead of on a line by itself.
> Could you explain the difference this makes, please? Drops an
> unnecessary newline?
It's mostly just personal preference, but I think:
If the daemon should not be autostarted unless the local administrator
has explicitly requested this, instead add to your ``postinst``
script::
update-rc.d package defaults-disabled
reads better in text form than:
If the daemon should not be autostarted unless the local administrator
has explicitly requested this, instead add to your ``postinst`` script
::
update-rc.d package defaults-disabled
admittedly at the cost of making the markup less explicit. It also means
that the paragraph ends in a colon, which I like as punctuation, by taking
advantage of this part of the specification:
When text immediately precedes the "::", one colon will be removed
from the output, leaving only one colon visible (i.e., "::" will be
replaced by ":"; this is the "fully minimized" form).
I could be convinced that the more explicit markup is better, but for me
the indentation hints at literal block anyway (since I'm used to
Markdown), so I don't really need the additional hint.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
