Re: mdoc(7): improve description of .Em and .Sy

[Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de>]

Hi Jason,

Jason McIntyre wrote on Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 09:16:02PM +0100:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 05:13:10PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:

>> Citing from 
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/CR/text-level-semantics.html
[...]

> these are nice tidy rules, though i note no example is given for
> importance.

Oh, they do have an example for importance, i just cut it for brevity.

> anyway, i'm just trying to say it's blurry.

That is certainly true.  All the more reason for trying to at least
make the idea as clear als possible, even though cases where the
application is ambiguous will no doubt occur in practice.

> emphasis is not
> just about "stress" (more a spoken thing anyway). yes, in that case you
> can change the meaning of a sentence. what about:
> 
> 	The shell is a
> 	.Em command line interpreter .
> 
> 	The shell is a
> 	.Sy command line interpreter .

Actually, it depends on the context.  I would consider the following
good usage:

  When espie@ complained what a
  .Em horribly
  designed programming language the shell is,
  halex@ tried to argue that it's not actually
  .Em that
  bad, and jmc@ remarked that it's just a
  .Em command line interpreter .

  Some commonly installed programs:
  .Bl -bullet
  .It
  scp is a
  .Em remote copy program.
  If is part of the OpenSSH suite...
  .It
  The shell is a
  .Sy command line interpreter .
  Many flavours are available: ksh, csh, zsh, bash, ...
  .It
  sed is a non-interactive
  .Em stream editor
  ...

> this is not stress emphasis, but i'd pick Em.
> maybe i'd be wrong (along with 1000 other man pages).

Hm, i'm not quite sure which context you are thinking of.

> yes, i can see the mess you're trying to clean up.
> i'm fine with your diffs, and haven;t a better solution to hand.

Good, so it's in.

Yours,
  Ingo
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv