Use of menuchoice tag

Jump to: navigation, search

I came across a similar issue within link texts. Link texts already stand out, and adding extra emphasis to words in a link doesn't look good in my opinion. I haven't done anything about these - I know that there are other considerations, such as compliance with docbook, but does that apply to links?

Claus chr09:12, 23 September 2010

I want to stick to compliance with docbook, and I'm honestly not sure of the answer to this. I suspect that the markup within the link may be unnecessary, but I'd like Yurchor to confirm this.

annew11:28, 23 September 2010
 

In fact, there is no such thing as compliance ;)

I have to re-write wiki2docbook to replace <menuchoice> with ''' and parse <keycap>Ctrl+F</keycap> to get <keycombo><keycap>Ctrl</keycap><keycap>F</keycap></keycombo>.

To understand things better, you can compare XML (exported from UserBase and slightly fixed) and DocBook from rekonq pages here, Amarok pages here, and KrossWordPuzzle pages here.

The only thing that is needed for successful conversion is the consistent markup in UserBase itself. Nothing more. There must not be markup like <keycap>OK</keycap>.

The stable rules (and of course, great look of pages) is the only thing that matter for documentation. Should we separate clearer what pages are and what pages are not documentation?

Surely, there is not much sense to prompt someone to use "this markup is a mess!"© just to write their plans on Telepathy, which are far from the real-world implementation. ;)

Thanks in advance

Yurchor12:05, 23 September 2010

[quote]I have to re-write wiki2docbook to replace with '''[/quote] - how useful is <nowiki><menuchoice></nowiki> then? It seems strange to me that I'm going through pages changing "'''" into <nowiki><menuchoice></nowiki> when you have to change them back.

I don't think there's much we can do to help with the keycap parsing, though. Sorry about the "OK" - I think I've only done it once, and it certainly wasn't intentional. I have a bad habit of thinking that I just need to get to a certain point before stopping work, when it would have been better if I had stopped a little earlier.

Maybe we need a thread somewhere more central about which pages need strict markup, and which are better served by just bold and italic carefully applied.

annew17:53, 23 September 2010
 

It is useful. It makes GUI elements on UserBase pages mauch more prominent.

For example, <menuchoice>Ok</menuchoice> gives Ok, but '''Ok''' gives just Ok which is not so visible. If you are trying to follow some instruction the former variant is much better, imho. ;)

I just want to say that DocBook compliance and UserBase markup have to be treated separately.

Yurchor18:48, 23 September 2010
 

That was a very useful clarification. Looking at the docbook code for rekonq, I get the impression, that we should not use emphasis on application names when they appear in the text of a link. Is that correct?

Claus chr05:26, 24 September 2010
 

Yes, it would be better, but emphasizing is not crucial. It can be easily tweaked during final polishing. Just a replace of <guilabel>rekonq</guilabel> with "&rekonq;".

The most ugly thing is to use bold typeface or <menuchoice> in section headers, or bold in {{Warning}}. Can it be added to Guidelines?

Thanks.

Yurchor13:13, 24 September 2010

Yes, I'll do that. I guessed that it was better not to use it in section headers (I left some in because they were originally there, and I wasn't sure) but I wouldn't have thought of leaving it out of the templates - I assume that the same applies to Information, Notes and Tips templates.

annew15:12, 24 September 2010