groff `Lk' badness

[Kristaps Dzonsons <kristaps@bsd.lv>]

Hi,

By way of a note by Aldis Berzoja, it seems that `Lk' has some 
mysterious behaviour we should clarify.

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.  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).

mandoc formats its output as "foo: bar baz xyzzy", but I think this is 
misleading because the ":" is a reserved token in the URI spec.

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, with link-name being bold and link 
being underlined.

Thoughts?

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