Open Stack

I agree on allowing either way without ramifications of a negative review.
We should consider changing the RST conventions to say "follow the standard
Sphinx/RST conventions" (provide a link) and add just a few things to
maintain consistency and prevent specific issues with our workflow and
publishing mechanism. For example, Sphinx/RST seems to accept any sequence
of characters to determine chapter, section, and subsections, but for
consistency we prefer to use overline/underline "=" for chapters, underline
"~" for sections, and underline "-" for subsections.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Andreas Jaeger" <aj at suse.com>
> > To: "Matt Kassawara" <mkassawara at gmail.com>
> >
> > On 09/25/2015 06:27 PM, Matt Kassawara wrote:
> > > Doh, bad word choice. How about... lesser semantic markup that adds
> > > complexity to the code without appreciable benefit to our audience in
> > > the output.
> > >
> >
> > What about the following (and feel free to enhance that list):
> >
> > We have no preference for :file:`some-file` or ``some-file``, both
> > options will be accepted and neither gets a -1.
> >
> > Andreas
>
> I'd be +1 on this, I can't for the life of me remember all the possible
> variants and as Matt pointed out they have zero impact positive or
> otherwise on what we ultimately present to the reader.
>
> -Steve
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20150925/b8955e6d/attachment.html>