r7932 - in trunk/BOOK: . gnome/core introduction/welcome postlfs/security
krendoshazin at dementedfury.org
Wed Aug 5 09:42:20 PDT 2009
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:34:27AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Guy Dalziel wrote these words on 08/05/09 11:16 CST:
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 04:56:19PM +0100, Guy Dalziel wrote:
> >> My apologies, I sent an email to -dev about this subject before you sent
> >> yours. However, I believe it is correct to use optional, perhaps this
> >> tag wasn't available when it was decided to use option.
> > p.s., I'm quite happy to do the work myself,
> I'm now confused as to exactly what you're asking, Guy. Are you saying
> that we've not got <option>, <optional>, and <parameter> tags in the book?
> Or are you saying that the <optional> tags should be <option>?
> Could you clarify this for me?
I'm saying that for optional dependencies we should be using the
optional tag. Right now we use option for them, but as far as docbook is
concerned this isn't the correct tag to use. Option and Optional are for
2 different things. Maybe it doesn't seem that important, I just have a
thing about standards compliance.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the blfs-dev