From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from scc-mailout-kit-02.scc.kit.edu (scc-mailout-kit-02.scc.kit.edu [129.13.231.82]) by fantadrom.bsd.lv (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 4e3fd6f2 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 19:49:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from asta-nat.asta.uni-karlsruhe.de ([172.22.63.82] helo=hekate.usta.de) by scc-mailout-kit-02.scc.kit.edu with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (envelope-from ) id 1cxNWL-0000PU-9k; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 02:49:30 +0200 Received: from donnerwolke.usta.de ([172.24.96.3]) by hekate.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1cxNWI-0002A3-Jf; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 02:49:26 +0200 Received: from athene.usta.de ([172.24.96.10]) by donnerwolke.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cxNWG-0005an-84; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 02:49:25 +0200 Received: from localhost (athene.usta.de [local]) by athene.usta.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 96b044c5; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 02:49:24 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 02:49:24 +0200 From: Ingo Schwarze To: "Anthony J. Bentley" Cc: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: Groff difference: punctuation following Lk Message-ID: <20170410004924.GA50206@athene.usta.de> References: <80788.1491038992@cathet.us> <20170409212247.GC76366@athene.usta.de> <65939.1491774443@cathet.us> 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: <65939.1491774443@cathet.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Hi Anthony, Anthony J. Bentley wrote on Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 03:47:23PM -0600: > I like it very much. Good, thanks for having a look, submitted to groff. > Groff's output still differs in two ways that I can see. Yes, i'm aware of these two differences, but followed the concept of "one change at a time". > The first is that it doesn't handle multiple arguments well: > > .Lk https://www.example.com/ a b c > > becomes "a: https://www.example.com/ b c" in groff (b and c bolded), > instead of "a b c: https://example.com/" in mandoc. I agree that the mandoc behaviour is useful and the groff behaviour is useless, confusing, and likely unintentional. I'll probably look whether groff can be improved. I can't believe anybody relies on the current behaviour. > The other is that URLs of a certain size (I think that's the criteria?) > get indented in groff. You can see this in sendbug(1), for example: > > The status of bug reports can be followed by checking the > bugs@openbsd.org mailing list archive available at > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs. > > Reducing the URL to 25 characters removes the indent: > > The status of bug reports can be followed by checking the > bugs@openbsd.org mailing list archive available at > http://marc.info/?l=openb. Yes, doc.tmac-u hardcodes a limit for inserting a virtual .D1 macro of >= 26\(en for nroff, but 38 for troff. That is weird, but the end-result usually looks OK, ... > Mandoc doesn't indent in either case. ... so probably mandoc should follow. Yours, Ingo -- To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv