Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/05/31/11:48:34
-: Not that I care in particular, but I wonder why did you make so many
-: changes like @sc{djgpp} -> DJGPP, or why you removed @acronym.
I originally expected the correct markup to be something like this:
@acronym{DJGPP}
@acronym{DOS}
@acronym{COFF}
@code{djasm}
@file{djasm.y}
IMHO the @acronym markup is appropriate for DJGPP, DOS, COFF, etc.
But then I had the following exchange with DJ:
-: -: Are there any preferences out there for a
-: -: particular Texinfo markup for djgpp and
-: -: djasm? E.g.:
-: -:
-: -: @code{djasm}
-: -: @sc{djasm}
-: -: @acronym{djasm}
-: -:
-: -: something else?
-:
-: DJGPP and djgpp use no markup.
-: djasm is a file name, and uses whatever markup other file names use.
which I interpreted to mean I shouldn't use @acronym or @sc.
Did I misunderstand you, DJ?
-: > The stub could have been written to use @sc{nasm}, but
-: > (1) @sc{nasm} wasn't around at the time, and
-: > ! (2) a dedicated 16-bit compiler would make DJGPP independent of
-: > any other product.
-:
-: This will be formatted by both makeinfo and TeX so that the alignment
-: will be gone. If you want a real enumerated list, use @enumerate.
-: (Yes, I know this problem was in the original text.)
This (1)-(2) `list' was intended to be formatted as in-line text;
I broke the line where I did just for convenience.
-: "omf" is an acronym, so it should be either written as OMF or @sc{omf}
-: or @acronym{OMF}.
Right, thanks.
- Raw text -