* Re: mdocml: Import changes by schwarze@ and Jason McIntyre into manuals.
[not found] <201012061637.oB6GbW9j031066@krisdoz.my.domain>
@ 2010-12-19 8:23 ` Ingo Schwarze
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Ingo Schwarze @ 2010-12-19 8:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tech; +Cc: jmc
Hi Kristaps,
kristaps@mdocml.bsd.lv wrote on Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:37:32AM -0500:
> Log Message:
> -----------
> Import changes by schwarze@ and Jason McIntyre into manuals. These are
> for the new libroff macros, the new libman macros, and for the sake of
> general clarity.
>
> Note that `ft' documentation is NOT included, as I've kept it in -man:
> it's highly confusing to have it in roff.7 when it's not implemented for
> both -man and -mdoc, as at least in theory, roff.7 should include only
> macros recognised by BOTH formats.
>
> Modified Files:
> --------------
> mdocml:
> mdoc.7
> roff.7
Our manuals are now back in sync.
Note that i left .ft in roff(7) for now because i failed to make up
my mind about it. Your reasoning of course makes a lot of sense.
On the other hand:
It's a bug that mdoc(7) does not recognize .ft, even if using
.ft in mdoc(7) should clearly be discouraged - but .ft is a roff(7)
request, not a man(7) macro.
Adding .ft to mdoc(7) has no priority, it is hardly used there.
Besides being unwilling to waste my time adding .ft to mdoc(7),
i'm even a bit reluctant to encumber mdoc(7) with it:
I'm still dreaming about a common request/macro table that will
always include roff(7) macros, including .br, .sp, .ft, .de, .ds
and so on, being extended by macros when man(7) or mdoc(7) get
loaded, and being overwritten by .de and .ds. It is not urgent
at all, but i hope that at some point we can do it. There is
no finished design yet, it's just a nebulous idea.
Yours,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread