A Publication Style Guide for Linux? 27
Saqib Ali asks: "Apple, publishes the Apple Publications Style Guide, which codifies the way in which Apple documentation uses language. This publication contains information about the specific terms that are used to describe interface elements. It also defines style and usage issues such as how certain terms are used and the preferred capitalization, spelling, and hyphenation of those terms. Some parts of the style guide are excerpted in this chapter to provide quick reference for key elements of the user interface. Whenever you are constructing a language for your application, you can consult the Apple Publications Style Guide to help you to create consistent and usable one. Is there a similar Style Guide for Linux Publications? If not, why not?"
"My interest in this stems from the fact that there is lot of Linux Documentation (including mine) that are not consistent in the style and terminology. So, I would like to propose a creation of a Style Guide for Linux Technical Publication. I think a wiki would be the perfect tool to create this Guide collaboratively. I am willing to host a Wiki @ http://tools.tldp.org (The Linux Documentation Project development server). Is this a good idea? Are people interested in seeing something of this sort?"
The ultimate irony (Score:3, Funny)
GNOME has one. (Score:4, Informative)
Available at:
http://developer.gnome.org/documents/style-g
Discusses mostly how to write accessible and translatable documentation. And includes a standard terminology list.
Haven't read it in a while so don't know how complete it is, also it is probably very GUI/GNOME-centric for obvious reasons.
I am not sure but I would assume other projects (KDE?) have similar documents.
Of course not (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a group of people that fork free software because it's not free enough. Am I being clear enough?
Re:Of course not (Score:1)
Re:Of course not (Score:2)
Re:Of course not (Score:4, Funny)
Style and Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever seen the average linux application compares to the average OSX or even Windows program? Style? Linux?
The only time Linux had style was in 1998 when Enlightenment was being actively developed and it made people's jaws drop. But maybe that wasn't style but just effectssomething that Windows or Mac didn't have at the time.
Mod parent down! He hasn't Tried KDE 3.2 (Score:1)
paraphrasing Alan Cox, (Score:3, Funny)
Let the holy wars commence (Score:3, Funny)
IMHO, though, a very good idea - once established, the OSS has a habit of sticking to standards.
Re:Let the holy wars commence (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is precisely why this is a bad idea.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm a tech writer [picknit.com], and style guides are part of my professional toolset. But the point of a style guide is to get a bunch of disparate people writing with a common voice, so that the reader isn't distracted or confused by inconsistent usage. How could you possibly expect anything like a common voice from the odd assortment of volunteers that
Re:Let the holy wars commence (Score:1)
Down with monolithic running dogs of imperialism! (Score:1, Redundant)
No.
"If not, why not?"
Because the linux world is not monolithic, and we prefer it that way.
AUISG. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:AUISG. (Score:2)
Re:AUISG. (Score:3, Funny)
SCO - Fucking their customers with style.
Design by fiat (Score:5, Insightful)
The Unix culture loves standards. Standards are yummy. Unix eats standards for between-meal snacks. But what the Unix culture abhores is standards created from whole cloth and handed down from on high.
Why? Is it just because we're just cranky? Well, we can be cranky, but it's not just that.
It's because standards created from whole cloth and handed down from on high are invariably awful. When someone sits down to write a standard, they have the luxury of ignoring vast tracts of difficult territory, of hand-waving away little details like implementation.
That's why the Unix culture prefers its standards to evolve from existing, successful practice. That's why successful RFC's don't create a standard out of nothing, but rather codify something that's already been done. They turn research into production, but the research has to be there first. It has to be something that people see is good, something that with a few tweaks could be a good standard for wider use.
If Unix were to somehow get a unified style guide, it would happen because one of the many excellent existing styles gained the acceptance of the community in general. Then and only then would that style guide be turned into a standard.
Re:Design by fiat (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because standards created from whole cloth and handed down from on high are invariably awful.
Often true. But many (if not most) documention style guides aren't developed prescriptively, in the manner you describe. They're developed descriptively, from existing documentation. And they're frequently updated, revised, and extended. IMO Apple's style guides are an excellent example of this method of development.
cbd.
Re:Design by fiat (Score:2)
LDP (Score:4, Informative)
Just use the Chicago one, add ideas (but not language) from the Apple style guide where relevant, and sprinkle it with the Jargon file for that UNIXy flavor.
In all seriousness, the LDP has a style guide [linux.com], but it looks somewhat thin to me (I haven't read it through though, in best /. style). Publications style guides are for projects that do real documentation. That kind of documentation tends to be unpopular with FOSS, because it requires a level of feature stability that's not common in FOSS, and a certain amount of hierarchical management that's definitely not popular with FOSS. Besides, most people who participate in FOSS are doing so to scratch a development itch, and have a cavalier attitude about documentation. I'd suggest looking more toward a publisher like O'Reilly for a model of how to write documentation.
Style guide (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't code, but I can learn to use software, and I can write. Count me in.
I thought there was one (Score:3, Funny)
Apple declines to use foo bar... (Score:1)
"Avoid foo, bar, baz opr frobazz to represent hierarchical or ordered metasymbols in code examples."
That's bullshit!
Guide for Linux Documentation (Score:3, Insightful)