[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Doubts about a typo fix
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: Doubts about a typo fix |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Nov 2022 18:18:46 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2 |
Thanks for the info about groff. You're right, tzdb man pages are
supposed to be portable to both groff and traditional troff. For the
latter I test with /usr/bin/nroff and /usr/bin/troff on Solaris 10,
which is the oldest troff I know that is still supported.
On 2022-11-23 13:40, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
Strictly, this string definition should be updated to use the font's
minus sign even if the formatter is groff (the `.g` register
interpolates a true value).
.ie \n(.g \{\
. ds : \:
. ds - \f(CW\-\fP
.\}
If we did that, Groff would set a source string like "\*-\*-help" as
"−−help", with two instances of U+2212 MINUS SIGN instead of U+002D
HYPHEN-MINUS. Therefore people couldn't cut and paste code examples out
of HTML or PDF, and into the shell.
"\f(CW-\fP" is used instead of plain "-" because when the output is PDF,
it is more clearly visible to humans as a hyphen-minus instead of as a
hyphen (U+2010 HYPHEN).
Most people won't see a difference because groff 1.22.4 (and earlier
releases going back to, I think, 2009) the man(7) macro package remaps
the hyphen to the minus sign on the 'utf8' output device.
I noticed the abovementioned problem with PDF output, and I still see it
with groff 1.22.4.
I see a different issue with groff 1.22.4 on Ubuntu 22.10: I cannot
easily see the difference between "\f(CR-\fP" and "\f(CR\-\fP" on output
to PDF. If I cut from the output PDF and paste into Emacs or the
terminal, the former is indeed U+002D and the latter U+2202 and the
difference is readily visible in Emacs or the terminal; but it's not
readily visible in the PDF. However, this glitch is not a serious issue
for man pages since examples always contain hyphen-minuses not minus
signs, so I didn't worry about it. I assume that it's yet another font
thing, since the problem doesn't occur in the default Roman font.
I also note that "CW" is an old, AT&T device-independent
troff-compatible font name.[3] groff's preferred name for this face is
"CR", because for the past couple of decades a monospace font (often
Courier) has generally been available in all four styles (roman,
oblique, bold, and bold-oblique).
Thanks, I didn't know that was preferred. I installed the attached patch
into the tzdb development repository
0001-Use-CR-font-instead-of-CW.patch
Description: Text Data
- Doubts about a typo fix, Alejandro Colomar, 2022/11/23
- Re: Doubts about a typo fix, G. Branden Robinson, 2022/11/23
- Re: Doubts about a typo fix,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: Doubts about a typo fix, G. Branden Robinson, 2022/11/25
- Re: Doubts about a typo fix, Deri, 2022/11/26
- Re: Doubts about a typo fix, Paul Eggert, 2022/11/26
- Re: Doubts about a typo fix, G. Branden Robinson, 2022/11/26
- Re: Doubts about a typo fix, Deri, 2022/11/26
- Re: Doubts about a typo fix, Paul Eggert, 2022/11/26
- Re: Doubts about a typo fix, Steffen Nurpmeso, 2022/11/26
- Re: Doubts about a typo fix, G. Branden Robinson, 2022/11/26
- Re: [tz] Doubts about a typo fix, Russ Allbery, 2022/11/25
- Re: [tz] Doubts about a typo fix, Paul Eggert, 2022/11/25