From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7DMt5c3018079 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:55:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (c-50-136-212-110.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.136.212.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s7DMstbi016945 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:54:57 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailinglist: mdocml-tech Reply-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: mdoc(7): improve description of .Em and .Sy From: Guy Harris In-Reply-To: <20140813212212.GG26534@iris.usta.de> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:54:55 -0700 Cc: jmc@openbsd.org Message-Id: <688F0B4B-25B9-4C50-8746-55AB04734189@alum.mit.edu> References: <20140813212212.GG26534@iris.usta.de> To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVZF7KCTxZz8j9v4vWm7XhfQnI3xo5RBdggTnQO+y//R+qgtLWVVRzLKu6Eik5wsb6h3c/II3DBYBNLau6yyF1Vq X-Sonic-ID: C;KkrI1zwj5BGgct90oK8kYw== M;ksoR2Dwj5BGgct90oK8kYw== X-Spam-Flag: No X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by krisdoz.my.domain id s7DMt5c3018079 On Aug 13, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > The central question is whether these macros should be considered > as semantic or as physical markup. While the historic documents > may slightly, if inconsistently, favour the semantic standpoint, > in our MACRO OVERVIEW i called them "physical", and i'd like to > stick with that, for the following reason: Even if we call them > semantic, we have to define such a broad range of semantic > meanings that translation into any other modern semantic markup > language, in particular HTML, becomes impossible. In particular, > sometimes .Em would have to become , sometimes , .Sy > sometimes and sometimes , but there is no way to > automatically decide which is the right one when finding one of > these macros in a manual page, so we would have to fall back to > physical markup anyway. Calling the physical also reflects actual > usage better and isn't completely inconsistent with historical > documentation. Well, there's physical, as in "display this in italic characters", and there's physical, as in "present this in some form that indicates emphasis"; the latter is "physical" in that it explicitly affects presentation but not "physical" in the sense that it explicitly *specifies* presentation (it could be read in an emphatic tone by a browser for vision-impaired users). Unfortunately, mdoc, unlike HTML, never had "display this in italic characters", and somebody who had a reason to want the text displayed in italic characters for reasons *other* than emphasis had to fall back on .Em, so maybe retroactively redefining .Em to mean "display this in italic characters" is the least bad choice (adding .I to mdoc wouldn't help people who want to write man pages that will work with older versions of mandoc and with the mdoc macros). -- To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv