From: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:22:13 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/15] user-manual: Standardize backtick quoting
Message-ID: <20130210152213.GA5462@odin.tremily.us>
In-Reply-To: <d520dd4ff6774ef8d858a2438008c686d58db9b7.1360508415.git.wking@tremily.us>

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:10:34AM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote:
> @@ -4155,8 +4156,9 @@ As a result, the general consistency of an object can always be tested
>  independently of the contents or the type of the object: all objects can
>  be validated by verifying that (a) their hashes match the content of the
>  file and (b) the object successfully inflates to a stream of bytes that
> -forms a sequence of <ascii type without space> {plus} <space> {plus} <ascii decimal
> -size> {plus} <byte\0> {plus} <binary object data>.
> +forms a sequence of
> +`<ascii type without space> {plus} <space> {plus} <ascii decimal size>
> +{plus} <byte\0> {plus} <binary object data>`.
>  
>  The structured objects can further have their structure and
>  connectivity to other objects verified. This is generally done with

Reading through the user-manual history, it looks like I goofed here.
6cf378f0 (docs: stop using asciidoc no-inline-literal, 2012-04-26)
points out that `{plus}` is no longer interpreted inside backticks.
In v3, I'll use `+` instead of `{plus}`.

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy