Description of problem: fedora-entities-en.xml Various entities were incorrectly constructed. Most were missing copyright declarations. I've added a grouping of example entities for user,host, and/or network specific references. Some "open" issues still exist and have been posted to the mailinglist for review.
Created attachment 113996 [details] diff -u fedora-entities-en.xml.orig fedora-entities-en.xml > fedora-entities-en.xml.diff
*** Bug 156770 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
OOPS! Line 134 comment should be changed to read: <!-- Example POP3 server fqdn: pop3.redhat.local -->
I'd like to make a couple suggestions: 1. Change the example domains. Refer to RFC 2606 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2606.html) for additional information. A suggestion might be "fedora.example." Do not use the name Red Hat, since it might imply an unnecessary corporate link. Additional domains might be "core.example" or "mydomain.example." 2. Drop the Buddhism-inspired names. Some readers may object to their usage, and therefore these entity names violate style guidelines. Use the neutral-toned "station{1,2,3...}", "node{1,2,3...}", or some other equally generic term. 3. No SMILEY entity is needed, since its use also would break style rules.
These look really good. Thanks for cleaning up the file and thinking the entities through. I don't think we need to emphasize or keep Red Hat specific entities. I think their presence is related to the boilerplate page. When it comes to trademarks, we don't need to note them with every usage. In fact, we have permission to put a blanket statement in the boilerplate, "All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners," or somesuch, and we should be fine. I've been meaning to make that change for a while. Have trademarks all over a doc is not a pretty sight. :) I agree with Paul's comments (#4). I'll address some open issues on the mailing list.
Ticket moved to allow products to be removed from BZ.