1 |
Kent Fredric posted on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:23:59 +1300 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 12 March 2015 at 15:19, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> Comments? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> |
8 |
> A less radical change would be some sort of tagging notation on each |
9 |
> feature to indicate their usage. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> That way, it doesn't impede the current audience who expects to be able |
12 |
> to browse the list alphabetically. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> ( I suggest this, because restructuring it radically will have potential |
15 |
> bikeshed drama of people not liking the new layout, so tag-style |
16 |
> metadata makes the levels visible without requiring a restructure ) |
17 |
|
18 |
Tags would be less radical, indeed, and an improvement from current, |
19 |
agreed. |
20 |
|
21 |
But as envisioned, the alphabetic order of all options (including those |
22 |
listed in the other sections, as I mentioned in the original proposal) |
23 |
would be maintained in the all options section, precisely because it |
24 |
remains useful to have an alphabetically ordered full-reference section. |
25 |
|
26 |
Tho as proposed, that all-options section may /optionally/ be moved into |
27 |
its own manpage, with an explicit note to that effect in the main |
28 |
manpage. Among other things that would avoid an already long manpage |
29 |
made longer by repeated option descriptions. But I don't feel strongly |
30 |
enough about such a split to make it a big deal if others don't like the |
31 |
idea, the the "optional" qualifier. |
32 |
|
33 |
IOW, people that didn't like the new layout could simply refer to the all- |
34 |
options section or separate manpage for the old alphabetically-ordered |
35 |
full reference layout, which should hopefully reduce resistance |
36 |
dramatically. =:^) |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
40 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
41 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |