Hi,
ok. we revised the whole stuff. It might be a little bit colorful now,
but IMHO it becomes also more friendly so.
OK. I'll try to find a little time to do an xsl mockup of this stuff.
There are several semantics issues, which we should think over. For
instance, the <em>s used in syntax definitions should be <var>s.
Yes, true.
Or,
from mod_include.html:
| The processing is controlled by specially formated SGML comments,
| referred to as <em>elements</em>.
is probably better written as "... <dfn>elements</dfn>."
I'm not exactly sure what you are implying here. What specifically does <dfn> mean semantically?
The other one I was thinking of adding which is somewhat related is some kind of tag to indicate that something is defined in the glossary (which the xsl could automatically transform into a link to the relevant place in the glossary).
And another one is that <code> might be overused in some places where a more specific tag would be better. I haven't thought too much about what could replace it.
Joshua.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
