From: "DJ Chase" <u9000@posteo.mx>
To: "Alejandro Colomar" <alx.manpages@gmail.com>,
"Ingo Schwarze" <schwarze@usta.de>
Cc: <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com>, <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
<groff@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 19:43:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CM60BZSRVXB6.19YICCPQBUCTD@grinningface> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <738eadd5-5495-d848-ef08-544e97fc1452@gmail.com>
On Sun Aug 14, 2022 at 12:32 PM EDT, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On 8/14/22 16:49, DJ Chase wrote:
> > On Sun Aug 14, 2022 at 9:56 AM EDT, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> >> You appear to massively overrate the importance end-users
> >> typically attribute to standardization.
> >
> > That’s probably because *I* massively overrate the importance of
> > standardization (I mean I literally carry a standards binder with me).
> > Still, though, it’s rather annoying that end users — especially
> > programmers — don’t value standards as much.
>
> (Official) standardization isn't necessarily a good thing. With C, it
> was originally good, in the times of ISO C89. Now, it's doing more
> damage to the language and current implementations than any good (it's
> still doing some good, but a lot of bad).
>
> [Snipped because I’m not going to quote the whole email — see previous
> message for argument]
>
> I think it's better to let natural selection to work out its way. If a
> feature is good, other implementations will pick it, and maybe even
> improve it. If a feature is not good (or it's not needed by other
> systems), it will not be portable.
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?
Cheers,
--
DJ Chase
They, Them, Theirs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-14 19:43 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 [this message]
2022-08-15 11:59 ` Alejandro Colomar
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=CM60BZSRVXB6.19YICCPQBUCTD@grinningface \
--to=u9000@posteo.mx \
--cc=alx.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=g.branden.robinson@gmail.com \
--cc=groff@gnu.org \
--cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=schwarze@usta.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox