http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573334
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573334#c0 Summary: monodoc: Ecma-334 Notational Conventions not followed Classification: Mono Product: Mono: Doctools Version: 2.4.x Platform: i686 OS/Version: Ubuntu Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Core AssignedTo: [email protected] ReportedBy: [email protected] QAContact: [email protected] Found By: Community User Blocker: --- Description of Problem: Section 5 of the Ecma-334 documentation is correct in the original PDF. However, in the monodoc package (version 2.4.2.0), it has been changed in a way that may confuse a beginner. The documentation in the second paragraph of the chapter reads: > Grammar productions include both non-terminal and > terminal symbols. In grammar productions, non-terminal > symbols are shown in italic type, and terminal symbols > are shown in a fixed-width font. Each non-terminal is > defined by a set of productions. The first line of a > set of productions is the name of the non-terminal, > followed by a colon. Each successive indented line > contains the right-hand side for a production that > has the non-terminal symbol as the left-hand side. > For example: The example then shown does NOT use a italics for the non-terminal symbol, it is NOT followed by a colon, and the terminal symbols are NOT in fixed-width font. In the original PDF, the example appears as described above. (As a beginner, unfamiliar with the formal language used "non-terminal and terminal symbols", I had to download the original PDF document to be certain I understood the paragraph above. I am guessing the problem continues throughout the documentation.) Steps to reproduce the problem: 1. Open document. 2. Read. Actual Results: - Document contradicts itself. Expected Results: - Document should follow its own conventions. How often does this happen? - Always. Additional Information: Either use italics, colons and fixed-with fonts as described, or change the paragraph to describe the conventions being used in monodoc. (I suspect the former to be the more officially approved way of doing things.) I hope this is the right place to report the bug. Google searches of monodoc kept driving me here eventually. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ mono-bugs maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-bugs
