[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?
From: |
Steve Izma |
Subject: |
Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF? |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:50:32 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) |
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:18:58PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Subject: Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?
>
Re: changing the URL submitted by an author so that it fits
typographical requirements.
> There is nothing wrong with the document author doing that in cases
> where it works together with the surrounding text, if and when the
> surrounding text provides sufficient context.
>
> But please don't change what the author writes behind the author's
> back, and least of all breaking existing documents.
That would be a problem, but the publishing process needs to be a
collaborative effort meeting the needs of both the typesetter and
the author -- the typesetter is, after all, responsible for
making the author's text readable. In fact, most publishers (even
the publishing co-ops that I'm usually involved with) impose the
design rules on the author, but "errors of fact" (which a broken
URL would be) need to be fixed with agreement of both parties.
> > I think it's an abomination that a man page extends it's line
> > length to fit the width of the terminal;
>
> That's exactly why the mandoc implementation of the man(1) program
> doesn't do that. Try it with a very wide virtual terminal window
> on an operating system like OpenBSD, Alpine Linux, or Void Linux;
> or on Fedora Linux with the "use mandoc as man" configuration option
> enabled; or on any other Linux with a mandoc package installed and
> enabled as man(1) by hand....
That's good to know; thanks.
> > It's interesting
> > that the Python Style Guide insists on a maximum line length of
> > 79 characters and recommends 72. A basic premise of python design
> > is *readability of code*.
> The main reason of keeping the limit at 78 and not reducing it to,
> for example, 70 is that many existing manual pages have been written
> to look good with a limit of 78, and displaying them with a smaller
> width sometimes causes awkward line breaks. Not a huge deal, but
> then again, 78 isn't that bad for readability either, in particular
> given that there is a left margin of five display columns for mdoc(7)
> and seven display columns for man(7) by default.
Yes, that's a good point about left margins. But my python
reference was about the readability of python code.
-- Steve
--
Steve Izma
-
Home: 35 Locust St., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2H 1W6
E-mail: sizma@golden.net phone: 519-745-1313
cell (text only; not frequently checked): 519-998-2684
==
I have always felt the necessity to verify what to many seemed a
simple multiplication table.
-- Ilya Ehrenburg (Soviet author and critic; he's not
talking about mathematics)
- Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?, B 9, 2020/07/10
- Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?, Ingo Schwarze, 2020/07/10
- Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?, Colin Watson, 2020/07/11
- Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?, Steve Izma, 2020/07/11
- Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?, Michael Pirkola, 2020/07/17
- Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?, Steffen Nurpmeso, 2020/07/17
- Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?, Steve Izma, 2020/07/17
- Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?, Jan Stary, 2020/07/18
Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?, B 9, 2020/07/10