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 oBR0aWbu001659 for ; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 19:36:33 -0500 (EST) 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 1PX14g-0000ZH-MN; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 01:36:30 +0100 Received: from donnerwolke.usta.de ([172.24.96.3]) by hekate.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PX14g-0007Sj-Kv for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 01:36:30 +0100 Received: from iris.usta.de ([172.24.96.5] helo=usta.de) by donnerwolke.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PX14g-00077R-K4 for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 01:36:30 +0100 Received: from schwarze by usta.de with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PX14g-0003ZH-D9 for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 01:36:30 +0100 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 01:36:30 +0100 From: Ingo Schwarze To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: Sx quoting and Header Message-ID: <20101227003630.GO23914@iris.usta.de> References: <20101225152204.GY21954@danbala.tuwien.ac.at> <20101226233009.GM23914@iris.usta.de> <4D17D7F9.2070904@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: <4D17D7F9.2070904@bsd.lv> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Hi Kristaps, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote on Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 02:04:09AM +0200: > To assuage the trauma of dealing with -T[x]html, I've a patch on hand OK, so i'm not committing. > that stashes the mdoc_validate.c concatenated `Sh' string (see > post_sh()) into a mdoc_sh structure. This buffer is then pumped > right into html_idcat(), removing all those stupid loops over > children. > > The neat part about this is that, if I add a sorted list among > these, I can do the same in `Sx' and add a check that makes sure > `Sx' links actually go somewhere AND that sections/subsections/etc. > aren't duplicates. It's only little bits of code, but since this > isn't checked by nroff, I'll post it here for a relevancy check > before it goes in. I think that plan does make sense. Of course, all this should only cause warnings, not errors. Not sure whether a duplicate section or subsection, or a subsection with the same name as a section, warrants a warning, though. I guess a warning is only needed when a reference is ambiguous. Thus, the list nodes should probably contain a flag with the values OK, DUPE, WARNED, and when a DUPE gets referenced, a warning should be issued and the flag advanced to WARNED. > Note, if I haven't ever explained myself, that the hex encoding is > just to get around the fact that IDs are case-insensitive, while > -mdoc is case-sensitive (NAME != name)... Hm. In mdoc(7), it could actually happen that we might get both a `ds' and a `Ds' section. So yes, properly dealing with case appears to be relevant. Yours, Ingo -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv