[9fans] troff documentation link broken

[9fans] troff documentation link broken

[Carsten Kunze]

Hello,

the link

    http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/troff.html

on the web site

    http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/Using_troff/index.html

does not work.  There is a lot of information about troff but I am interested in special plan9 troff extensions.

Is there someone maintaining plan9 troff?  It seems to have bugs and I'd like to investigate that.

--Carsten

Re: [9fans] troff documentation link broken

[David du Colombier]

> the link
>
>     http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/troff.html
>
> on the web site
>
>     http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/Using_troff/index.html
>
> does not work.

I believe the html version of this manual has not been generated because
of some rending issues. You can still read the pdf manual.

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/troff.pdf

I've just generated the html version on http://9grid.fr/sys/doc/troff.html
and there are indeed some issues.

--
David du Colombier

Re: [9fans] troff documentation link broken

[Carsten Kunze]

> I've just generated the html version on http://9grid.fr/sys/doc/troff.html
> and there are indeed some issues.

Thank you!

If I'am able to reproduce a major issue should I report to the list? Or to you? Or is there currently no maintenance of plan9 troff?

--Carsten

Re: [9fans] troff documentation link broken

[David du Colombier]

> If I'am able to reproduce a major issue should I report to the list? Or to you? Or is there currently no maintenance of plan9 troff?

Sending bug reports to 9fans should be fine.

--
David du Colombier

Re: [9fans] troff documentation link broken

[Carsten Kunze]

> > If I'am able to reproduce a major issue should I report to the list? Or to
> you? Or is there currently no maintenance of plan9 troff?
>
> Sending bug reports to 9fans should be fine.

There seems to be a first bug in the manual ;)

On page 24 section 12.4. "Line drawing" there is underlining done with ".ul" (which actually gives italic output).  The correct macro name would be ".us" like defined above.

--Carsten

Re: [9fans] troff documentation link broken

[Anthony Sorace]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 403 bytes --]

On Jul 28, 2014, at 11:58 , Carsten Kunze <carsten.kunze@arcor.de> wrote:
> 
> If I'am able to reproduce a major issue should I report to the list? Or to you? Or is there currently no maintenance of plan9 troff?

The best thing to do is submit a patch. Troff is maintained with the rest of the system. For more info on submitting a patch, see:
	http://plan9.bell-labs.com/magic/man2html/1/patch


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 169 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] troff documentation link broken

[Pierre-Jean]

Hello,

Carsten Kunze <carsten.kunze@arcor.de> wrote:

> There seems to be a first bug in the manual ;)
>
> On page 24 section 12.4. "Line drawing" there is
> underlining done with ".ul" (which actually gives italic
> output).  The correct macro name would be ".us" like
> defined above.


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's
any bug here :

The .ul internal command draw an underline when possible,
and use italics when it's not possible. For example, on a
terminal without underlining capabilities, italics are used.

.us is just an example of an handmade underlining
macro, which is not expected to be implemented in all the
macro sets.

Cheers,

Pierre-Jean.

Re: [9fans] troff documentation link broken

[Carsten Kunze]

> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's
> any bug here :
>
> The .ul internal command draw an underline when possible,
> and use italics when it's not possible. For example, on a
> terminal without underlining capabilities, italics are used.
>
> .us is just an example of an handmade underlining
> macro, which is not expected to be implemented in all the
> macro sets.

The whole paragraph does not make sense if .ul is used.  Why defining .us and not using it.  This is a typo.  troff doesn't underline by itself.  One way is to write a custom macro (as .us) or use ms macro's .UL.  .ul only underlines in nroff.

Cheers,
Carsten

Re: [9fans] troff documentation link broken

[arnold]

Carsten Kunze <carsten.kunze@arcor.de> wrote:

> The whole paragraph does not make sense if .ul is used.  Why defining .us
> and not using it.  This is a typo.  troff doesn't underline by itself.
> One way is to write a custom macro (as .us) or use ms macro's .UL.
> .ul only underlines in nroff.

Please remember that the document applies to both nroff and troff.
For nroff (terminals, printers), .ul does underlining. For typesetters
(includes laser printers) troff .ul does italics. The .us macro shows
how to get real underlining on a typesetter device.

Evolution plays a part here. The original formatter was nroff for
printers and teletypes. Troff came along later, at which point .ul
was already in use in people's documents and/or macro packages.

HTH,

Arnold

Re: [9fans] troff documentation link broken

[Carsten Kunze]

> Please remember that the document applies to both nroff and troff.
> For nroff (terminals, printers), .ul does underlining. For typesetters
> (includes laser printers) troff .ul does italics. The .us macro shows
> how to get real underlining on a typesetter device.

Please read that paragraph carefully.  The "such that" means, that the above defined macros are (should be ;) used.  Also the shown output ist typeset, and not shown as typewritten with a CW font.  That is simply a typo...

> Evolution plays a part here. The original formatter was nroff for
> printers and teletypes. Troff came along later, at which point .ul
> was already in use in people's documents and/or macro packages.

That is well-known of course ...