LDP
/
LDP
mirror of https://github.com/tLDP/LDP
0
1
Fork 0
Code Releases Activity

ispelled

This commit is contained in:
appaji 2005-11-01 19:42:03 +00:00
parent 43cea8ff01
commit 3502600344
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
LDP/ldpwn/20051101.xml
View File

@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ checkup. Things to do are: </para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem><para>Check timestamp on all mirrors
<listitem><para>Check time-stamp on all mirrors
(http://www.tldp.org/mirrors.html), all URLs should have a
timestamp.txt in the top-level directory. </para></listitem>
@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ checkup. Things to do are: </para>
current situation <ulink
url="http://lists.tldp.org/index.cgi?1:mss:9693:200510:claiepedajakajhoajgg"
/>. The revised version is available for comment and David posted a
verson <ulink
version <ulink
url="http://lists.tldp.org/index.cgi?1:mss:9761:200510:ngajkeenpiioblmendee"
/> asking if discuss list is OK with it. </para>
@ -84,8 +84,8 @@ could revive LinuxDoc. </para>
<para>LDP or TLDP</para>
<para>David Lawyer, while discussing the draft of the Introduction to
the LDP Manifesto, said <quote>we did change was our url from
linuxdoc.org to tldp.org. But the old url still works (I just tried
the LDP Manifesto, said <quote>we did change was our URL from
linuxdoc.org to tldp.org. But the old URL still works (I just tried
it). So I'm in favor of continuing to use LDP and to not object if
people call us TLDP. LDP has a lot of name recognition in printed
books. If you look at our doc, there's several times more mention of