Karsten Wade wrote:
dbgenent?
Otherwise, yeah, I've seen the *.ent designation before, that makes
sense.
dbgenent refers to the docbook general entity module. normally ---
dbgenent.mod. But, the reason for the module extension is to modularize
all entities from within one file. And specific entities are then
subjected to categorization.
i.e. iso-amsa.ent, iso-amsb.ent, etc...
In all the higher-level drivers i've utilized before, the custom general
entities were called from a module file:
example.dbgenent.mod. Then this inclusion file calls the neccessary
entity declarations: category-project.ent using a parameter entity
declaration.
But this complexity is not found in fedora declarations. Is just *.ent good?
>- if the "bluecurve" entity is accepted; does the
<interfacedefinition/>
>element suffice as the parent node with its expected context?
>
>
I don't see that element, do you mean <interfacename>? Regardless, AIUI
that is an interface for OO programming and not a user interface. I
would capitalize "Bluecurve" and leave it alone without a special tag,
after all, it's just a name.
OK ... sounds good.
>- if the "rpm" entity is accepted; what is its legal
status? registered
>or trademark?
>
>
Not sure, but I think it's irrelevant.
My understanding is that we may replace most of the legal trademark
boilerplate with a line like this:
"All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners."
I'll hunt up a better sentence than that one.
I had this confirmed from Red Hat legal last year.
After you have properly attributed a trademark in the boilerplate, you
can use the mark in the text without a (TM) or (R). However, you -must-
use the term properly, e.g.:
Red Hat -not- RedHat
FireWire -not- firewire
RPM -not- rpm
etc.
This is a best effort thing, anyone who finds an improper spelling of a
trademark should just file a bug report. :)
I didn't realize fedora-docs had encompassing permissions. My bad. Guess
I should have done more research.
Better to be safe than sorry! :)
>- i neglected to utilize the common ISO entity declarations for
>readability. New authors find it difficult to read if utilized; yet
>translators probably need the ISO declarations. I prefer ISO --- but
>then again i am weird. ;)
>
>
How about we do this in two passes? Get all the details worked out,
then consider ISO entity declarations.
- Karsten
Good idea.