From: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
To: DJ Chase <u9000@posteo.mx>
Cc: g.branden.robinson@gmail.com, linux-man@vger.kernel.org,
groff@gnu.org, Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de>
Subject: Re: Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:59:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <094e3016-a8fc-b9a8-f6c0-bf2461a30216@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CM60BZSRVXB6.19YICCPQBUCTD@grinningface>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2506 bytes --]
Hi,
On 8/14/22 21:43, DJ Chase wrote:
> True; prescriptive standards can certainly make some things worse. As a
> further example, ISO 8601 sucks. I mean, its core specification is
> great, but there are so many different ways that are allowed that the
> full standard is almost completely unparseable. It also uses a slash
> between the start and end times of a period instead of something
> sensible, like, I don’t know, an en-dash! Which means that periods can
> be written with a slash (because that’s the standard) but also with an
> en-dash (because that’s how ranges work in English), but also that one
> can’t properly write a period in a file name or URI.
>
> Still, though, I think descriptive standards can be net-positive. The
> POSIX shell utilities comes to mind. Sure, they certainly have some
> issues, but because it’s a trailing standard, implementers are free to
> fix them.
>
> Do you think that a descriptive/trailing standard could be beneficial
> or would you still say that it could mostly hinder *roff
> implementations?
Well, a standard that truly recognizes the authority of implementations
to drive the language and doesn't do anything else but describe the best
already-implemented ways to achive things is a good thing. It can't
hinder future implementations, because it doesn't have the power to
drive the future of the language, only describes the past.
POSIX C has been doing good in that; much better than ISO C.
I don't understand how POSIX works internally, though. If some entity
can fund (and is interested in) such a standardization process, it could
bring some good. But yeah, it will likely be very costly in time and
money. Worth it? I don't know.
But we can achieve something very similar by documenting the differences
between known roff alternatives somewhere. And that's likely to be much
easier.
In the Linux man-pages we document when a function is in ISO C or in
POSIX, but also when it's not standardized but present in other Unix
systems (so that it has some degree of portability), or when it is
Linux-only. Maybe having something similar in groff's manual pages
would be effective.
For example, for .MR, we were discussing that probably it would be good
to add a note like "(since groff 1.23.0)" and maybe it could also state
which other roff (or mandoc) implementations support it.
Cheers,
Alex
--
Alejandro Colomar
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-15 11:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-29 11:45 [PATCH 4/6] xattr.7: wfix Štěpán Němec
2022-07-29 20:58 ` G. Branden Robinson
2022-07-30 14:15 ` Štěpán Němec
2022-07-30 17:53 ` Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
2022-07-30 17:59 ` Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
2022-08-01 13:28 ` Alejandro Colomar
2022-08-11 12:48 ` Ingo Schwarze
2022-08-11 20:17 ` G. Branden Robinson
2022-08-12 14:30 ` Ingo Schwarze
2022-08-12 22:10 ` *roff `\~` support (was: [PATCH 4/6] xattr.7: wfix) G. Branden Robinson
2022-08-13 4:23 ` G. Branden Robinson
2022-08-14 14:15 ` Ingo Schwarze
2022-08-14 22:21 ` G. Branden Robinson
2022-08-13 17:27 ` DJ Chase
2022-08-14 13:56 ` Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support) Ingo Schwarze
2022-08-14 14:49 ` DJ Chase
2022-08-14 16:32 ` Alejandro Colomar
2022-08-14 19:43 ` DJ Chase
2022-08-15 11:59 ` Alejandro Colomar [this message]
2022-08-16 11:48 ` Ingo Schwarze
2022-08-14 22:35 ` G. Branden Robinson
2022-08-14 22:58 ` DJ Chase
2022-08-15 0:20 ` Sam Varshavchik
2022-08-16 12:52 ` Standardize roff Ingo Schwarze
2022-08-16 23:46 ` Sam Varshavchik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=094e3016-a8fc-b9a8-f6c0-bf2461a30216@gmail.com \
--to=alx.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=g.branden.robinson@gmail.com \
--cc=groff@gnu.org \
--cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=schwarze@usta.de \
--cc=u9000@posteo.mx \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.