Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 02:53 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Here's the discussion when the syntax-check was added:
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010-03/msg00321.html
>
> My kneejerk reaction is that we shouldn't police GNU manuals
> to remove instances of the acronym markup
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 03:50 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> Is this something we want to fix?
>>
>> I'd feel better about "fixing" this if there were some explanation
>> in comments for *why* avoiding @acronym{...} is a good idea.
>> Karl?
>
> Here's the discussion
On 11/16/2010 02:53 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Here's the discussion when the syntax-check was added:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010-03/msg00321.html
My kneejerk reaction is that we shouldn't police GNU manuals
to remove instances of the acronym markup. As the Texinfo manual
say
On 11/16/2010 03:50 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Is this something we want to fix?
>
> I'd feel better about "fixing" this if there were some explanation
> in comments for *why* avoiding @acronym{...} is a good idea.
> Karl?
Here's the discussion when the syntax-check was a
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Is this something we want to fix?
I'd feel better about "fixing" this if there were some explanation
in comments for *why* avoiding @acronym{...} is a good idea.
Karl?
> doc/parse-datetime.texi:459:@cindex beginning of time, for @acronym{POSIX}
> doc/parse-datetime.texi:4
Is this something we want to fix?
/Simon
doc/parse-datetime.texi:459:@cindex beginning of time, for @acronym{POSIX}
doc/parse-datetime.texi:460:@cindex epoch, for @acronym{POSIX}
doc/parse-datetime.texi:462:an epoch---a well-defined point of time. On
@acronym{GNU} and
doc/parse-datetime.texi:46
