Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 18:23:53 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: JT Williams cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: djgpp: djgpp/src/utils/djasm.txi In-Reply-To: <20010531100838.A7495@kendall.sfbr.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Thu, 31 May 2001, JT Williams wrote: > -: 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? Whatever DJ wants DJGPP to look like, clearly rules ;-). However, you changed much more than just DJGPP: DOS, DPMI, CWSDPMI, NASM, COFF--you name it. Curiously enough, Gas is typeset as @sc{gas}. Again, I don't care much about these changes, I just wondered why did you bother to do so many of them. (We usually try to minimize gratuitous changes, unless they are really needed. In a project like DJGPP, where people leave out to go about the rest of their lives, and others come to pick up where they left off, this sounds like a good idea: you can never know whether those who were there before you did what they did for a good reason...)