Re: Re: distribution of INI information in the manual

> Now you made me curious on how old are you. :) almost 18 :) > >>>- additional entities for a better consistency (&php; for > >>> <literal>PHP</literal> for example, which will fix [1] > >> > >>Why is PHP a literal? It could be a <productname> or something but why a > >>literal? BTW I am not entirely sure that an entitiy is needed for this. > >>I would be fine with the style "PHP 4.2.0" without entities. > > > > I think that there is no need to have <literal>PHP</literal> as an entity. I > > think we could use just PHP and get ride of those entities. > > Just check the migration5.xml appendice in livedocs and wou will see how > > horrible PHP is formated. > > It is not just the format, but the meaning as well. Literal is not meant > to be used for 'product names' AFAIK. From the manual: "A Literal is some specific piece of data, taken literally, from a computer system. It is similar in some ways to UserInput and ComputerOutput, but is somewhat more of a general classification. The sorts of things that constitute literals varies by domain." So <literal> isn't the best choice!! > SF does not allow you to host some website which is not closely related > to the project you run on SF. We are not going to move the CVS to > SF.net, so it is not justifyable to put any services there. It does not > fit into the terms of service AFAIK. Of course we aren't going to move CVS to SF.net servers, but... We need a server to at least test livedocs. As belong to a big open source project... Let's wait for their answer! Nuno