Open Stack

I've seen a few cases of <literal> vs. <option> recently appear in reviews
and we need a decision either way. The convention definitions and examples
don't compel me to change <literal> to <option>.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com> wrote:

> On 09/17/2014 06:06 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
> > Heh.
> >
> > Okay, I don't see the value in changing all of our source at this point.
> > Here's an example though.
> >
> > This example of literal markup shows an inline "code" (ok, weak example)
> > marking. The nova user is not an option, but we do want to set it off as
> > it's the name we expect.
> >
> > <para>Replace <replaceable>NOVA_PASS</replaceable> with the password you
> > chose for the <literal>nova</literal> user in the Identity
> service.</para>
> >
> > In the example below, if we would use <option> instead of <literal> we
> > could one day automate a list of options described in the install guide:
> >
> > <note><para>Comment out any <literal>auth_host</literal>,
> > <literal>auth_port</literal>, and <literal>auth_protocol</literal>
> > options because the <literal>identity_uri</literal> option replaces
> > them.</para></note>
> >
> > I really don't think the difference is worth the trouble in changing the
> > current source though.
>
>
> So, new code should use <option>option</option> but old code with
> <literal> - also with key? is fine...
>
> Andreas
> --
>  Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi
>   SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
>    GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
>     GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20140917/43be7e6c/attachment.html>