Re: see also

with or without : ? Deep in my mind I remember Dams changed a couple of see also's to be written without :

Officially it should be without. Hold off on any mass changes though until the doc meeting figures out the format for "See also" as rumor has it a new tag or similar will exist for them.

I hope we will be able to add a new structural element for that. That would help much in the rendering of the docs, as well as automatic discovery. :) Goba