Re: Convention: true/false

> > I'm against it too. Most of docs already use <literal> and What is now used, is IMO not really relevant. > > I think Goba's right with TRUE not being a constant anymore. > > Well, it is listed as a constant is the source, but I > can only say, I don't think of it as a constant. You're right, technically it is a constant, but indeed it's better to NOT see it as a constant. However, using the <constant> tag doesn't put a balloon above it 'this is a constant'. As I see it, you use the xml-tags that *at best* reflect the meaning/intention of what is there. And in this light, I still believe (yes, I'm quite stubborn) that the <constant> tag is most appropriate, because it reflects the intention of it best (it still is a named value which never changes, i.e. constant). If there were a tag <keyword>... (there is, but not in this context). > > I would like to point out that spotting all True/FALse occurrences > > and turning them into tagged version would bring consistancy to > > docs, which is far beyond turning all literal -> constant. That is most important. > Well, anyway it is a good thing (TM) to bring consistancy to > the docs, and please do not forget about changing this. > Isn't there any other useful docbook tag for TRUE and FALSE? I've looked at the ref, I can't find anything :( And how about the suggestion to use &true;, &false;, and &null;, and define those entities to be what it should be? That is usually the easiest typing, I think. And when you decide that it maybe should be <constant class='language'>TRUE</contant>, or the same with literal, it saves you a lot op typing. > Goba Jeroen