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 That is the reason I am using the section titles instead of numbers, section titles usually do not get outdated.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.