[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: automake.texi and @acronym

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: automake.texi and @acronym
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:41:13 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.3

On 03/16/2010 05:58 PM, Karl Berry wrote:
>     The texinfo manual even uses @acronym{GNU} as
>     example.
> It's an example of how to use a Texinfo command.  It doesn't necessarily
> mean that GNU manuals should use it.  There are plenty of Texinfo
> commands which are there for "alternatives".
>     Do you have a rationale for eliminating @acronym?
> I've very very rarely seen it used in other GNU manuals.  The Texinfo
> manual itself, for example, doesn't (aside from the description of the
> command itself).  Emacs and GCC don't (last time I looked).  Etc.

The m4 manual uses it more times than not; however,...

> Also, simplicity argues to remove it.  Do we really want hundreds of
> '@acronym{GNU}"s scattered everywhere?  Yuck.
> You might ask, why does it exist at all.  The answer is, in non-GNU
> manuals, I sometimes wanted to print all-caps words in one point size
> smaller type, which is a common typographical refinement.  However, GNU
> manuals don't do this.
> So I vote for the color "invisible" :).

I'm okay with changing the m4 and autoconf manuals with
s/@acronym{GNU}/GNU/ if we agree that it is easier to maintain, and
doesn't buy much typographically.

Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]