>From two recent projects I am involved in, I have sent in close to 50 corrections in for three manuals. I have not received feedback on the 20 or so emails, but they have been trickling back in. An email does not get the same priority as a problem report. If you can code the command the way the manual describes it and it causes a situation, report it as problem.
>On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 09:11:03 -0500, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >Well, I chose to defer the skip-level and to appeal to the tech writer >to (appeal to the developer to) reconsider: > > I was extremely disappointed by that, focusing on the > sentence: > > ... I probably would not say anything about the > syntax rules that are followed because you may > give misleading information. > > It is the responsibility of a Command Reference to provide > a correct specification of the command syntax so that > programmers don't develop their own "misleading information". > Please go back to the developer; ask him to consult the > design document if necessary, and to determine what the > intended syntax of the command is and to produce suitable > input for the next edition of the Command Reference. If > necessary, take the draft to your test group to validate > that the product actually conforms to the specification. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
