On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 01:46 -0500, Thomas Jones wrote:
Hello all,
As per a recent conversation, I have generated a patch for the general
entity file --- fedora-entities-en.xml.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156771
There were a great many changes that I have made. Not all may be
accepted into CVS; but I believe that these changes provide good value
to the project.
Most surely will. This is great work, thanks.
As you know, work on a good entities scheme at the beginning will save
hours of work in the future.
I strongly encourage everyone to review these proposed changes,
especially if you have written with DocBook before.
As you review the changes, please keep the following "open"
issues in mind:
- this file is incorrectly identified as xml. When in fact, it does not
contain any XML markup at all. Just a thought. In keeping with
standardization, it should be something like en.fedora.dbgenent.ent.
But, thats just personal preference. ;)
dbgenent?
Otherwise, yeah, I've seen the *.ent designation before, that makes
sense.
- 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.
- 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. :)
BTW, Red Hat style is to usually to refer to "software packages" and not
call them "RPMs". I agree because it keeps things generic and not using
jargon unnecessarily.
- 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
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer *
http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/