From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A463A17E8E5 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:22:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723476180; cv=none; b=Ig6mETbNp7sJv4akyLhZ8GWbKEN2aK+jbkGyELxDOMjQrJ6RUAyztKsLIbSwNRE11zZXkHIWA+l1f3cpKUV4qEZIUx3ovt4IqBjXPnrHdaOKGRVhZTipMG6IAD6/ERt5e90VS5ngxqe1kvQr7rGbagNL5SSAKqw+QXmJdMM6ayM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723476180; c=relaxed/simple; bh=q6WX9Cy9ipcFHksej2EQJz9K279ddqGk43o2JnUC5Ac=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=f0vEGRowis5P++xByIfsYYZou4L5xI1Ve5I9fAOJ5QY88NI07rOGzHhMYzItE75WdwY+S1Qqgs7qaaIIU7Al7IjaZm+H4JsAwRsXdY1uk4mODvvdmySADa/fUVKH5+aaUXRyGeVR8M/YdEbza4Gd3z3TKYbidKUNVCCjvhNX0Rk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=AUViFUF6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="AUViFUF6" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B33322B057; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 11:22:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=q6WX9Cy9ipcFHksej2EQJz9K279ddqGk43o2Jn UC5Ac=; b=AUViFUF6Yk8tThk5k8GVyZjLhiejQsvDAstqM1861UeLb3EpsWGko0 JndEEGUsVr5hnkCLNg/rO7By0guO0OKJFmP3e5bbu3ppCEhrVu5RM9ujcSsou2Ps 6LI9C4G4VIAzbKDRN9tKi/QlmZ8zWt03cUJ1eEXO/PmHZVMVKFfqA= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D452B056; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 11:22:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.108.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 207122B055; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 11:22:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Sixt Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Jean-No=C3=ABl?= AVILA , =?utf-8?Q?Jean-N?= =?utf-8?Q?o=C3=ABl?= Avila via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] formatting macro In-Reply-To: (Johannes Sixt's message of "Mon, 12 Aug 2024 08:35:39 +0200") References: <5ef4a7bd-3b9f-4e71-9a22-e22012f815ce@kdbg.org> <4617471.LvFx2qVVIh@cayenne> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 08:22:47 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: BBE9F048-58BE-11EF-AC4B-BF444491E1BC-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Johannes Sixt writes: >> Square brackets are possible inside the double-quotes: >> s:["--ignore-submodules[=]"] >> >> Is this something that wouldn't repel you? > > You argued elsewhere in this thread: > >> * The fact that the source of the pages should be "perfectly readable" is a >> moot argument. Fair enough, it is not the objective to make it impossible to >> understand, but in the end, this is not what is consumed: these pages are >> compiled into other formats where the markup has been translated into styling. > > I buy this argument, in particular, since not even I read the plain text > files, but use the rendered version. FWIW, I do read the plain text files, and rarely if ever use the HTML version, except when checking the effect of changes to the mark-up. > I would like tone down my harsh opposition to mild opposition. IMO, it > should still be easy to *write* the documentation. It should not be > necessary that authors remember to use macros all over the place. Yeah, s:[...] does repel me, but also I do not think it is sensible to claim that we confortably edit the "source" form that we find it hard to read. > And I still think that we should not introduce macros just to please all > renderers. Let's just pick the one renderer that can do the job best. If > it means that some distribution cannot render the documentation > perfectly themselves (Debian? I don't know), they can always use the > pre-rendered version that Junio kindly produces. What Junio uses "Debian? I don't know" that cannot render the documentation ;-)?