Jean Hollis Weber wrote: > Janet Swisher wrote: > >Jean Hollis Weber wrote: > >>* Added the statement "All trademarks within this guide belong to legitimate > owners." > > > >This phrasing strikes me as odd. > > Jonathon Blake answered this question as I would have (but in more detail): > it's > standard legal boilerplate text. We should keep it.
Well, Janet didn't say "let's remove it", but instead suggested that we say "respective owners" instead of "legitimate owners". If it were up to me, I'd say "respective owners". It sounds better, and it is seems to be the more common usage. But I guess this isn't really all that important. > Daniel suggested having a note saying "this document covers OOo verion 2.1 and > was last updated on 12 July 2006". This is approximately what I had suggested, > but in the form of a note (instead of under a heading). I'm not sure which I > like best: a note or a heading. Does anyone else have a preference? Not particularly. > Daniel also suggested a scheme for the "version number" of the chapter. I > rather > like his suggestion, but I think it is unneccessary. Sure. I guess that if we start referring to different publications with any frequency, some naming convention will automatically form. Here's another alternative. The UG version would match the version of OOo, but we could have revisions: * User Guide version 2.0 * User Guide version 2.0 - 1st revision * User Guide version 2.0 - 2nd revision etc. How's that? That's what books do, right? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org |
