From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-2.sys.kth.se (smtp-2.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.160]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7LKM8Ml001584 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailscan-1.sys.kth.se (mailscan-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.91]) by smtp-2.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F88614F0FF for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:22:02 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at kth.se Received: from smtp-2.sys.kth.se ([130.237.32.160]) by mailscan-1.sys.kth.se (mailscan-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.91]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id JR9xnhZRNf-s for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:22:01 +0200 (CEST) X-KTH-Auth: kristaps [130.237.221.96] X-KTH-mail-from: kristaps@bsd.lv X-KTH-rcpt-to: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Received: from [130.237.221.96] (ctime.pdc.kth.se [130.237.221.96]) by smtp-2.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618A214C137 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:22:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C703500.4010404@bsd.lv> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:20:16 +0200 From: Kristaps Dzonsons User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100329) X-Mailinglist: mdocml-discuss Reply-To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: mdoc(7) COMPATIBILITY References: <201008202251.o7KMpT4F020687@krisdoz.my.domain> <4C6FB614.6010201@bsd.lv> <20100821160651.GA31898@iris.usta.de> <4C700D08.3040304@bsd.lv> <20100821201206.GA9511@iris.usta.de> In-Reply-To: <20100821201206.GA9511@iris.usta.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> That reminds me: can you put a note in mdoc.7 COMPATIBILITY? > > Uh. > I felt unable to decide where to put it... > > So, here is a proposal to sort that section by macro names, > to uniformly put these at the beginning of each line, > in order to make it easier to navigate, > and to distinguish shortcomings in groff from > unimplemented features in mandoc. > > I have removed a few entries because they seem untrue or > irrelevant: > > - "The comment syntax `\."' is no longer accepted." > It is discouraged, but mandoc does accept it. > - .Bd -ragged = -filled, -literal = -unfilled > I'm not aware of any real difference between groff and mandoc > in this respect. > - .Cd was restricted to section 4 manuals. > .Er was restricted to section 2 manuals. > .Ex was restricted to section 1, 6, and 8 manuals. > .Rv was restricted to section 2 and 3 manuals. > Actually, groff always renders these macros correctly, > even though it warns about .Ex and .Rv used elsewhere. > > Of course, i have also added the sentence about spacing in > .Bd -column, now that it's clear where to put it. ;-) Ingo, I like this approach. What follows are some further suggestions. First, there are a few more escapes we ignore; check mandoc.c and/or out.c for the scoop. Second, can you treat the man.7 manual the same way? For consistency. I'm still on the fence as to whether \f and friends should be in mandoc_char.7 or something to avoid duplication across man.7 and mdoc.7. Third, let's make - The \m (font colour), \M (font filling colour), and \s (font size) font decoration escapes are all discarded in mandoc. - The `f' scaling unit is accepted by mandoc, but rendered as the default unit. so that it's consistently - The \f (font) scaling unit is accepted by mandoc, but ^^^^^^^^ rendered as the default unit. In general, the escapes are sometimes quoted with e.g. `\f' and sometimes not. These should be unified. I also note, very particularly, that \m and friends are font decorations but text decorations... Kristaps -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv