From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from scc-mailout.scc.kit.edu (scc-mailout.scc.kit.edu [129.13.185.202]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2N17HMN012187 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hekate.usta.de (asta-nat.asta.uni-karlsruhe.de [172.22.63.82]) by scc-mailout-02.scc.kit.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1) id 1Q2CXW-0007J5-EJ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:07:14 +0100 Received: from donnerwolke.usta.de ([172.24.96.3]) by hekate.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2CXW-0000iH-HU for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:07:10 +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 1Q2CXW-0001Zo-Gu for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:07:10 +0100 Received: from schwarze by usta.de with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2CXW-000183-G9 for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:07:10 +0100 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:07:10 +0100 From: Ingo Schwarze To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: -man "line scope broken" Message-ID: <20110323010710.GC22498@iris.usta.de> References: <4D88C8B6.3040206@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: <4D88C8B6.3040206@bsd.lv> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Hi Kristaps, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote on Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 05:05:10PM +0100: > The TODO states: > > - bashbug(1) complains "line scope broken" after > .SM > .B something > should either just work or be a warning > reported by naddy@ > > I don't understand this. Why shouldn't it be an error (it's a > regular error, not a fatal one)? After all, the `SM' is lost by the > subsequent `B' (tested under groff -Tps): information is clearly > lost. What i meant when writing "... but typically, preparing that output involves information loss, ..." in mandoc(1) was _significant_ information loss, i.e. loss of information that the manual author intended to convey to the manual reader, typically loss of a part of the text of the manual, as opposed to loss of information in a mathematical sense. When there is no text to be lost, even if the information is lost that these zero words should be rendered in small font, i don't think we need to regard that as significant information loss. Even less so given that we don't distinguish font sizes in terminal output anyway, which is the most important output mode. Maybe we can amend the wording in the manual to reduce the risk of confusion? But i don't have a good suggestion to improve the wording right now... > Changing it to a warning is trivial, but I want to be sure > that this is meaningful. In think the description of a warning fits quite well here: warning An input file uses obsolete, discouraged or non-portable syntax. All the same, the meaning of the input is unambiguous and a correct rendering can be produced. Which is, here, dropping the .SM and rendering "something" as plain bold. Yours, Ingo -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv