In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom Cosgrove writes:
>
> Don't create a bug report for this. This is not a bug. This is a
> change of style that you (and some others) would like to see in the FAQ.
> Nick, myself, and other people who work on the FAQ read misc@; there's
> no point just pi**ing us off by calling this a "bug".
Ok, I have not decided how this report must be classified yet. I will
read the type of reports carefully when submitting the patch. Thanks
a lot for your advice, indeed, it is a change of style, not a "bug".
> > diff -urNp www/faq1.html www.new/faq1.html
> > --- www/faq1.html 2006-12-07 17:05:55.000000000 +0100
> > +++ www.new/faq1.html 2006-12-07 18:55:51.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -275,7 +275,8 @@ Theo de Raadt, located in Canada.
> >
> > The OpenBSD team makes a new release every six months, with target release
> > dates in May and November. More information on the development cycle
> > -can be found <a href="faq5.html#Flavors">here</a>.
> > +can be found in the <a href="faq5.html#Flavors">OpenBSD's Flavors</a>
> > +subsection of this FAQ.
>
> I personally find this clunky.
>
> It now reads: "More information... can be found in the OpenBSD's Flavors
> subsection of this FAQ."
I am open to any advice. My english skills really need to be improved.
Now that I see that Nick do not want long links I would replace it
with just "can be found in the flavours subsection", or something
like that (with the link in "flavours").
> I personally prefers something along the lines of "More information...
> can be found in section 5 of the FAQ." (with the link on "section 5
> of the FAQ") But Nick and I discuss changes like this backwards and
> forwards quite a bit from time to time... that is why this is not a
> mechanical set of changes, but one that requires a lot of effort and
> no small ability with the English language
I considered writing that link as you like, but there is a problem with
this scheme: as the source code does not have references to labels (in
the sense TeX uses \ref{}) this change will scale poorly if the
section numbers change.
If it is ok, I will use the section numbers instead. It is certainly
better! But... will this change make the FAQ more difficult to maintain
if the section numbers change? If a section number changes, it is
not good manually fixing the references to that section in a lot of
places in the FAQ. That is the reason I am using the section titles
instead of numbers, section titles usually do not get outdated.
> > <a name="Included"></a>
> > <h2>1.8 - What is included with OpenBSD?</h2>
> > @@ -362,7 +363,7 @@ Of course, additional applications can b
> > <!-- XXXrelease -->
> >
> > The complete list of changes made to OpenBSD 3.9 to create OpenBSD 4.0
> > -can be found <a href="../plus40.html">here</a>, however here are a few
> > +can be found in the <a href="../plus40.html">OpenBSD 4.0 changes</a> list,
> > however here are a few
>
> Here I personally prefer "... can be found in plus40.html." (with the link
> in the obvious place)
>
> (i.e. sometimes the general form "can be found at <a href="xxx">xxx</a>.
> works well. Especially since someone without an active link should be
> able to find the target without undue searching - at least, if this
> exercise is to be worthwhile).
Agreed, but the references to *.html files will be mostly useless
for people that, like me, use the text version of the FAQ. A link
like "plus40.html" depends on the structure of the FAQ (in this case,
the HTML files) that is not the same on all the formats.
> Keep on with this, though
I will try to do my best to provide a good patch!
> Many thanks
It is my pleasure being able to improve it. I really use the text
version of the FAQ and sometimes I miss better descriptions for
these "click here" links.
Cheers,
Igor.
