From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Debian-exim@smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.185.217]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o78Jb484007618 for ; Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:37:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hekate.usta.de (asta-nat.asta.uni-karlsruhe.de [172.22.63.82]) by smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1) id 1OiBg6-0005Mo-Is; Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:37:02 +0200 Received: from donnerwolke.usta.de ([172.24.96.3]) by hekate.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OiBg6-0004Xh-Hj; Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:37:02 +0200 Received: from hera.usta.de ([172.24.64.3]) by donnerwolke.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OiBg6-0001PU-Gf; Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:37:02 +0200 Received: from schwarze by hera.usta.de with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OiBg5-0001Y0-UC; Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:37:02 +0200 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 21:37:00 +0200 From: Ingo Schwarze To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Cc: aldis@bsdroot.lv Subject: Re: groff `Lk' badness Message-ID: <20100808193700.GC28837@usta.de> References: <4C5EFD04.2050407@bsd.lv> X-Mailinglist: mdocml-discuss Reply-To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C5EFD04.2050407@bsd.lv> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Hi Kristaps, > By way of a note by Aldis Berzoja, it seems that `Lk' has some > mysterious behaviour we should clarify. Thanks to Aldis for reporting! > Input: > > .Lk foo bar baz xyzzy > > groff Output: > > bar: foo baz xyzzy > > Where "bar:" is underlined and the rest is in bold. > > So it looks like "bar" is the link, as underlined things make us > think of links. I think here is the source of the confusion. > That would make "foo" be the link name (bold text) > and damned if I know why "baz" and "xyzzy" are also in bold. > This is confusing, because in fact `Lk' is documented as being link > first, link-name second (cutting off at two arguments and continuing > the formatting is probably a groff bug). Right, the latter (in parantheses) is what i think, too. > mandoc formats its output as "foo: bar baz xyzzy", I think this is wrong, and "bar baz xyzzy: foo" would be better. > but I think this is misleading because the ":" is a reserved > token in the URI spec. Yes. And think of it the following way: Here are some web sites of BSD operating systems: .br .Lk http://www.dragonflybsd.org/ "DragonFly BSD" .br .Lk http://www.freebsd.org/ FreeBSD .br .Lk http://www.netbsd.org/ NetBSD .br .Lk http://www.openbsd.org/ OpenBSD Rendering that as Here are some web sites of BSD operating systems: DragonFly BSD: http://www.dragonflybsd.org/ FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/ NetBSD: http://www.netbsd.org/ OpenBSD: http://www.openbsd.org/ seems quite natural, doesn't it? I wouldn't expect the URI to precede its description. > Can we come to an agreement as to how this should be formatted? I > don't want to be bug-compatible with groff in this case. I like the > "link: link-name" output, but due to the colon being a URI reserved > token, "link-name: link" makes more sense, Definitely. > with link-name being bold and link being underlined. Well, normally, you click on the link *name*, so underlining that makes sense. Besides, diverging from what groff does seems gratuitous in this particular respect. > Thoughts? The real mess is here: schwarze@rhea $ /usr/local/bin/groff --version | head -n1 GNU groff version 1.20.1 schwarze@rhea $ /usr/local/bin/groff -mdoc -Thtml link.in [...] NetBSD: http://www.netbsd.org/
OpenBSD: http://www.openbsd.org/

Groff doesn't even attempt to produce real hyperlinks in -Thtml mode. Is this true? I think we should have something similar to: NetBSD: http://www.netbsd.org/ Yours, Ingo -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv