From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from scc-mailout.scc.kit.edu (scc-mailout.scc.kit.edu [129.13.185.201]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8J8lYUH021367 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 04:47:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hekate.usta.de (asta-nat.asta.uni-karlsruhe.de [172.22.63.82]) by scc-mailout-01.scc.kit.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1) id 1R5ZVj-0007NT-4c; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:47:31 +0200 Received: from donnerwolke.usta.de ([172.24.96.3]) by hekate.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R5ZVl-0005SS-7q for tech@mdocml.bsd.lv; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:47:33 +0200 Received: from iris.usta.de ([172.24.96.5] helo=usta.de) by donnerwolke.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R5ZVl-0003F0-5Y for tech@mdocml.bsd.lv; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:47:33 +0200 Received: from schwarze by usta.de with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R5ZPT-0008HH-10 for tech@mdocml.bsd.lv; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:41:03 +0200 Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:41:03 +0200 From: Ingo Schwarze To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: 1.11.7 minor issues Message-ID: <20110919084103.GD1243@iris.usta.de> References: <20110918233910.GK29692@iris.usta.de> <4E7684BF.7030702@bsd.lv> <20110919075816.GA1243@iris.usta.de> <4E76F90F.40204@bsd.lv> X-Mailinglist: mdocml-tech Reply-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E76F90F.40204@bsd.lv> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Hi Kristaps, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote on Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:10:55AM +0200: > I'm fine with this. Thanks for looking, i have put it in. > Is there some place in {mdoc,man}(7) where we should be noting this? So far, we say very little about how specific input will be physically formatted, we rather document how the input should look like with respect to syntax and semantics. That said, mentioning this might make sense, so i have taken a note in my private TODO file (i don't think it warrants a public TODO entry). The upcoming reordering should be done first. Also, this is a typical case where mdoc(7) and man(7) and even other macro packages behave the same way, so it belongs more in roff(7). I still hope that we can move common stuff there, pointing to it where required, to avoid duplication and make mdoc(7) and man(7) shorter. > It seems that a few words regarding > hyphenation would be useful, to wit, noting that hyphens will not > break within a macro in mdoc(7), but will in a regular text context, > and the conditions for such breakage. Yes, we should probably return to that at some point. Yours, Ingo -- To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv