Re: mdoc section ordering

[Kristaps Dzonsons <kristaps@bsd.lv>]

> I'm fine with that, only then mandoc should stop "enforcing" this
> ordering. It's perfectly fine with me!
> 
> Kristaps, what to you think?

Seems the consensus is to roll with the FreeBSD version, which is fine 
by me.  The sections were originally unioned over all mdoc.template and 
man.template files I could find.  I didn't sweat the order.

End result:

.Sh NAME
.Sh LIBRARY
.Sh SYNOPSIS
.Sh DESCRIPTION
.Sh IMPLEMENTATION NOTES  <-- this one seems wankiest to me
.Sh RETURN VALUES
.Sh ENVIRONMENT
.Sh FILES
.Sh EXIT STATUS
.Sh EXAMPLES
.Sh DIAGNOSTICS
.Sh COMPATIBILITY
.Sh ERRORS
.Sh SEE ALSO
.Sh STANDARDS
.Sh HISTORY
.Sh AUTHORS
.Sh CAVEATS
.Sh BUGS
.Sh SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS  <-- shouldn't this be CAVEATS?

Jason, in my opinion, COMPATIBILITY and STANDARDS shouldn't be merged in 
all cases.  Take mdocml's man.7 and mdoc.7, for example: the 
COMPATIBILITY section is used to enumerate the differences between 
troffs and mandoc.  Since -man, -mdoc, etc. aren't standards, where else 
would this go?

Anyway, if everybody ok's this order, I'll commit it and add the 
requisite bits to the docs.

Ulrich, you said you know of a handful of mis-ordered NetBSD pages.  Can 
you post those to Joerg?  He'll probably want to know about them (will 
your python script auto-gen a patch for him?).

Thanks,

Kristaps
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv