Re: tags for protocols - examples

["James M. Cape" <jcape jcinteractive com>]

Karl EICHWALDER wrote:
> 
> Telsa Gwynne <hobbit@aloss.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> 
> |   o IRC isn't really an application.
> |   o dcc is an irc function.
> |   o ftp is a protocol.
> |   o RealAudio is a protocol too, apparently!
> 
> Yes, or positively: Gnumeric or Emacs are <application>s (cf. Walsh, TDG
> (The Definitive Guide), p. 134s.).  I don't see the need to tag the
> "protocols".  Do you want to achive special visual effects?  Automatic
> generation of index entries (interesting point!).

Well, to mark up protocols as such is structurally The Right Way,
although pragmatically at the moment, there really is not a point to it.
Thus, I'm in favor of doing it the Right Way, and letting the GHB
authors figure out if they want to auto-index it or what have you.
Better to mark up terms as such now, and figure out how (or if one
wants) to handle it later. However, I don't know enough about DocBook to
suggest a solution. Is there a PROTOCOL element defined?

> |   And on a related note (from gnome-lokkit), whilst I am displaying
> |   my ignorance:
> |
> |       <para>
> |         You need to have a Linux kernel with IPFW or IPChains enabled:
> |
> |   o Dunno what IPFW or IPChains should be :)
> 
> Me, too.  I'd tag those as <option> or <literal>.

Well, "ipchains" is an executable (just thought I'd contribute by
murking the waters :-))

    Jim Cape
    http://www.jcinteractive.com

    "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them
     pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
        -- Winston Churchill