Re: [Groff] underlining

[Ted Harding]

I would not wholly agree with this! Granted, in normal running text
words would be printed in italics for emphasis (which indeed is also
a technical name). The "aliasing" of groff's underlining to italics
for printed output is of course a relic of the days (going back to
teletypes indeed) when the only resource for emphasis was underlining
(involving of course backspacing and printing underscores).

However, there can be good reason for underlining some text even
when it will be printed. For one thing, it is much more conspicuous
on the printed page, which helps when the reader will need to find
it when referred back to it.

So there is scope for both. 

And, for instance in documents which need to preserve text which
was in earlier versions but has now been eliminated, one can
similarly "midlining" (aka strike-out) which shows what the text
used to be (often used in draft documents, where the "lost" text
may later be ressurected). And so on ...

At least in ms macros, the ".UL" will underline whatever it is given
as an argument; but this does not live well with line-breaks. So a
macro which can smoothly underline a section of text that may break
across lines is a Good Thing (though very awkward to implement in
groff).

Just a few thoughts,
Ted.

On 07-Jul-2014 20:28:36 Carsten Kunze wrote:
> There is good reason for using italic font for text marked with .ul. For
> typesetting underlining is very bad typography. So the current programming IS
> best programming. And it is documented in really every book about UNIX troff
> (did you read one?).
> 
> So create a new groff request (different name from .ul) it does not harm. But
> please do NOT change .ul --it works perfect!
> 
> --Carsten
> 
> 
> ----- Original Nachricht ----
> Von:     Bernd Warken <address@hidden>
> An:      groff mailinglist <address@hidden>
> Datum:   07.07.2014 21:28
> Betreff: [Groff] underlining
> 
>> 1) I propose to add documentation for underlining in `groff.7'.
>> 
>> 2) A long time ago, Werner Lemberg wrote an ul.tmac and publisheed it only
>> in this
>> mailing list.  But I could not find this tmac file somewhere else.
>> 
>> 3) There is a `groff' request `.ul', that just generates an italic font
>> change.
>> In nroff (ttyt/latin1 mode), italic is always printed as underlined - so .ul
>> works
>> there.  But in `troff', italic mode is kept.  So a better programming for
>> `.ul'
>> in `troff' would be useful.
>> 
>> 4) The following macro can basically handle underlining also in `troff',
>> maybe it should
>> be improved a bit.  I forgot, where I got this macro definition,  I use it
>> since
>> several years in some of my man-pages.
>> 
>> 5) Macro:
>> .\" .UNDERLINE before underlined after
>> .de UNDERLINE
>> .  ie n \\$1\fI\\$2\fP\\$3
>> .  el \\$1\Z'\\$2'\v'.25m'\D'l \w'\\$2'u 0'\v'-.25m'\\$3
>> ..
>> 
>> 6) Unfortunately, `doclifter' has much trouble with definitions of all kind.
>>  For that
>> the following parts without `.de' can be used.
>> 
>> .\" Copy the following lines for any underlined part
>> .
>> .\" before, not underlined, choose \& when empty
>> .ds u1 before
>> .\" this is underlined
>> .ds u2 in
>> .\" after, not underlined, choose \& when empty
>> .ds u3 after
>> .
>> .ie n \(*u1\fI\*(u2\fP\*(u3\"
>> .el \(*u1\Z'\*(u2'\v'.25m'\D'l \w'\*(u2'u 0'\v'-.25m'\*(u3\"
>> ..
>> 
>> 7) I propose to include similar documentations about underlining in groff.7
>> (man/groff.man).
>> 
>> Bernd Warken
>> 
>> 
> 

-------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Date: 07-Jul-2014  Time: 21:53:48
This message was sent by XFMail
-------------------------------------------------