[PATCH] ascii.7: chase down History to earliest

[PATCH] ascii.7: chase down History to earliest

[наб]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1019 bytes --]

Cf., well, the UNIX Programmer's Manual:
  https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dennis_v1/UNIX_ProgrammersManual_Nov71.pdf
PDF page 191; yes, the typographical convention here is insane, and
the contemprary-correct way to refer to this page from within the manual
would be /just/ "/etc/ascii", but, given the context, "/etc/ascii (VII)"
makes the most sense to me

Signed-off-by: Ahelenia Ziemiańska <nabijaczleweli@nabijaczleweli.xyz>
---
 man7/ascii.7 | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/man7/ascii.7 b/man7/ascii.7
index 1bba7bbaa..71e89384b 100644
--- a/man7/ascii.7
+++ b/man7/ascii.7
@@ -134,9 +134,7 @@ F: / ? O _ o DEL
 .fi
 .SH NOTES
 .SS History
-An
-.B ascii
-manual page appeared in Version 7 of AT&T UNIX.
+/etc/ascii (VII) appears in the UNIX Programmer's Manual.
 .PP
 On older terminals, the underscore code is displayed as a left arrow,
 called backarrow, the caret is displayed as an up-arrow and the vertical
-- 
2.30.2

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] ascii.7: chase down History to earliest

[Alex Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1707 bytes --]

Hi!

On 10/17/22 03:22, наб wrote:
> Cf., well, the UNIX Programmer's Manual:
>    https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dennis_v1/UNIX_ProgrammersManual_Nov71.pdf
> PDF page 191; yes, the typographical convention here is insane, and
> the contemprary-correct way to refer to this page from within the manual
> would be /just/ "/etc/ascii", but, given the context, "/etc/ascii (VII)"
> makes the most sense to me
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ahelenia Ziemiańska <nabijaczleweli@nabijaczleweli.xyz>
> ---
>   man7/ascii.7 | 4 +---
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man7/ascii.7 b/man7/ascii.7
> index 1bba7bbaa..71e89384b 100644
> --- a/man7/ascii.7
> +++ b/man7/ascii.7
> @@ -134,9 +134,7 @@ F: / ? O _ o DEL
>   .fi
>   .SH NOTES
>   .SS History
> -An
> -.B ascii
> -manual page appeared in Version 7 of AT&T UNIX.
> +/etc/ascii (VII) appears in the UNIX Programmer's Manual.

I wonder if '.BR /etc/ascii (7)' wouldn't be better.

Also, shouldn't we clarify the Version 7 of the UNIX Programmer's 
Manual?  Or was it only called that way in V7?  I ignore much of history 
about those times, but I guess older versions also used the exact same 
title, right?

Maybe something like:

.BR /etc/ascii (7)
appears in the UNIX Programmer's Manual in Version 7.

I don't know if we refer to that thing in other pages.  If so, it might 
be interesting to check the syntax used there for consistency.

Cheers,

Alex

>   .PP
>   On older terminals, the underscore code is displayed as a left arrow,
>   called backarrow, the caret is displayed as an up-arrow and the vertical

-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] ascii.7: chase down History to earliest

[наб]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1555 bytes --]

Hi!

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 11:58:06AM +0200, Alex Colomar wrote:
> On 10/17/22 03:22, наб wrote:
> > Cf., well, the UNIX Programmer's Manual:
> >    https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dennis_v1/UNIX_ProgrammersManual_Nov71.pdf
> > PDF page 191; yes, the typographical convention here is insane, and
> > the contemprary-correct way to refer to this page from within the manual
> > would be /just/ "/etc/ascii", but, given the context, "/etc/ascii (VII)"
> > makes the most sense to me
> > 
> > --- a/man7/ascii.7
> > +++ b/man7/ascii.7
> > @@ -134,9 +134,7 @@ F: / ? O _ o DEL
> >   .fi
> >   .SH NOTES
> >   .SS History
> > -An
> > -.B ascii
> > -manual page appeared in Version 7 of AT&T UNIX.
> > +/etc/ascii (VII) appears in the UNIX Programmer's Manual.
> 
> I wonder if '.BR /etc/ascii (7)' wouldn't be better.
> 
> Also, shouldn't we clarify the Version 7 of the UNIX Programmer's Manual?
> Or was it only called that way in V7?  I ignore much of history about those
> times, but I guess older versions also used the exact same title, right?

uhhhh, what do you mean Version 7?
This appears in /the/ UNIX Programmer's Manual.
Before they were versioned or whatever.

So no, (7) is wrong because it's (VII)
(indeed, arabic numbers started in V7).
It's not bold because you can't do that on a typewriter.
You could make the argument for it being together,
but the prevailing convention is either no section at all or
space-before-section, and the page number has the space.

Best,
наб

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] ascii.7: chase down History to earliest

[Alex Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2198 bytes --]

Hi!

On 10/17/22 12:56, наб wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 11:58:06AM +0200, Alex Colomar wrote:
>> On 10/17/22 03:22, наб wrote:
>>> Cf., well, the UNIX Programmer's Manual:
>>>     https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dennis_v1/UNIX_ProgrammersManual_Nov71.pdf
>>> PDF page 191; yes, the typographical convention here is insane, and
>>> the contemprary-correct way to refer to this page from within the manual
>>> would be /just/ "/etc/ascii", but, given the context, "/etc/ascii (VII)"
>>> makes the most sense to me
>>>
>>> --- a/man7/ascii.7
>>> +++ b/man7/ascii.7
>>> @@ -134,9 +134,7 @@ F: / ? O _ o DEL
>>>    .fi
>>>    .SH NOTES
>>>    .SS History
>>> -An
>>> -.B ascii
>>> -manual page appeared in Version 7 of AT&T UNIX.
>>> +/etc/ascii (VII) appears in the UNIX Programmer's Manual.
>>
>> I wonder if '.BR /etc/ascii (7)' wouldn't be better.
>>
>> Also, shouldn't we clarify the Version 7 of the UNIX Programmer's Manual?
>> Or was it only called that way in V7?  I ignore much of history about those
>> times, but I guess older versions also used the exact same title, right?
> 
> uhhhh, what do you mean Version 7?
> This appears in /the/ UNIX Programmer's Manual.
> Before they were versioned or whatever.

Ahh sorry, I was mixing sevens in my head.  Now I got it.

> 
> So no, (7) is wrong because it's (VII)
> (indeed, arabic numbers started in V7).
> It's not bold because you can't do that on a typewriter.
> You could make the argument for it being together,
> but the prevailing convention is either no section at all or
> space-before-section, and the page number has the space.

I guess you're referring to the old convention (from TUPM)?  In this 
case it's a bit weird because we're referring to an old manual page from 
a new manual page, so I don't know if we should use the old syntax or 
the new one...  We now have better (or different) capabilities (bold), 
and arabic numbers, so we could take advantage of them...  But maybe 
that could confuse...  I guess I'll go with what you prefer, since 
you're writing it, and I'm not sure.

Best,
Alex

-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Subdirs of man*/ (was: [PATCH] ascii.7: chase down History to earliest) (refers: man -M tcl)

[Alex Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2854 bytes --]

[CC += groff@, since it was CCd in the old conversation referred to here]

Hi Ingo,

On 7/27/22 17:32, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
 > Alejandro Colomar wrote on Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 06:17:40PM +0200:
 >> I wondered for a long time what happens if you create subdirs within a
 >> man? section.  How do man(1)s handle </usr/share/man/man3/python/foo.3>?
 > On *BSD systems, that typically means:
 >
 >    The architecture-specific library function foo(3)
 >    for the "python" hardware architecture.
 >
 > Here are a few examples from OpenBSD:
 >
 >    /usr/share/man/man1/sparc64/mksuncd.1
 >    /usr/share/man/man2/armv7/arm_sync_icache.2
 >    /usr/share/man/man2/i386/i386_iopl.2
 >    /usr/share/man/man3/octeon/cacheflush.3
 >    /usr/share/man/man3/sgi/get_fpc_csr.3
 >    /usr/share/man/man4/alpha/irongate.4
 >    /usr/share/man/man4/amd64/mpbios.4
 >    /usr/share/man/man4/luna88k/cbus.4
 >    /usr/share/man/man4/macppc/openpic.4
 >    /usr/share/man/man4/powerpc64/opalcons.4
 >    /usr/share/man/man4/riscv64/sfgpio.4
 >    /usr/share/man/man5/sparc64/ldom.conf.5
 >    /usr/share/man/man8/hppa/boot.8
 >    /usr/share/man/man8/macppc/pdisk.8
 >    /usr/share/man/man8/sgi/sgivol.8
 >    /usr/share/man/man8/sparc64/ldomctl.8


On 10/17/22 03:22, наб wrote:
> Cf., well, the UNIX Programmer's Manual:
>    https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dennis_v1/UNIX_ProgrammersManual_Nov71.pdf
> PDF page 191; yes, the typographical convention here is insane, and
> the contemprary-correct way to refer to this page from within the manual
> would be /just/ "/etc/ascii", but, given the context, "/etc/ascii (VII)"
> makes the most sense to me

I just saw this and wondered if the subdirs in the past were used as 
just part of the manual page name...

I have been remembering every now and then the discussion we had about a 
hypothetical -M, and think we need it or something like that.  I guess 
subdirs are not possible nowadays because of the translation usage, but 
I'm curious about if that was different in the past or what.

Does anyone know?

Cheers,

Alex

> 
> Signed-off-by: Ahelenia Ziemiańska <nabijaczleweli@nabijaczleweli.xyz>
> ---
>   man7/ascii.7 | 4 +---
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man7/ascii.7 b/man7/ascii.7
> index 1bba7bbaa..71e89384b 100644
> --- a/man7/ascii.7
> +++ b/man7/ascii.7
> @@ -134,9 +134,7 @@ F: / ? O _ o DEL
>   .fi
>   .SH NOTES
>   .SS History
> -An
> -.B ascii
> -manual page appeared in Version 7 of AT&T UNIX.
> +/etc/ascii (VII) appears in the UNIX Programmer's Manual.
>   .PP
>   On older terminals, the underscore code is displayed as a left arrow,
>   called backarrow, the caret is displayed as an up-arrow and the vertical

-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Subdirs of man*/ (was: [PATCH] ascii.7: chase down History to earliest) (refers: man -M tcl)

[Alex Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2411 bytes --]

On 10/17/22 13:10, Alex Colomar wrote:
> [CC += groff@, since it was CCd in the old conversation referred to here]
> 
> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On 7/27/22 17:32, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>  > Alejandro Colomar wrote on Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 06:17:40PM +0200:
>  >> I wondered for a long time what happens if you create subdirs within a
>  >> man? section.  How do man(1)s handle 
> </usr/share/man/man3/python/foo.3>?
>  > On *BSD systems, that typically means:
>  >
>  >    The architecture-specific library function foo(3)
>  >    for the "python" hardware architecture.
>  >
>  > Here are a few examples from OpenBSD:
>  >
>  >    /usr/share/man/man1/sparc64/mksuncd.1
>  >    /usr/share/man/man2/armv7/arm_sync_icache.2
>  >    /usr/share/man/man2/i386/i386_iopl.2
>  >    /usr/share/man/man3/octeon/cacheflush.3
>  >    /usr/share/man/man3/sgi/get_fpc_csr.3
>  >    /usr/share/man/man4/alpha/irongate.4
>  >    /usr/share/man/man4/amd64/mpbios.4
>  >    /usr/share/man/man4/luna88k/cbus.4
>  >    /usr/share/man/man4/macppc/openpic.4
>  >    /usr/share/man/man4/powerpc64/opalcons.4
>  >    /usr/share/man/man4/riscv64/sfgpio.4
>  >    /usr/share/man/man5/sparc64/ldom.conf.5
>  >    /usr/share/man/man8/hppa/boot.8
>  >    /usr/share/man/man8/macppc/pdisk.8
>  >    /usr/share/man/man8/sgi/sgivol.8
>  >    /usr/share/man/man8/sparc64/ldomctl.8
> 
> 
> On 10/17/22 03:22, наб wrote:
>> Cf., well, the UNIX Programmer's Manual:
>>    
>> https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dennis_v1/UNIX_ProgrammersManual_Nov71.pdf
>> PDF page 191; yes, the typographical convention here is insane, and
>> the contemprary-correct way to refer to this page from within the manual
>> would be /just/ "/etc/ascii", but, given the context, "/etc/ascii (VII)"
>> makes the most sense to me
> 
> I just saw this and wondered if the subdirs in the past were used as 
> just part of the manual page name...
> 
> I have been remembering every now and then the discussion we had about a 
> hypothetical -M, and think we need it or something like that.  I guess 
> subdirs are not possible nowadays because of the translation usage, but 
s/translation/arch/
> I'm curious about if that was different in the past or what.
> 
> Does anyone know?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alex


-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Subdirs of man*/ (was: [PATCH] ascii.7: chase down History to earliest) (refers: man -M tcl)

[наб]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3220 bytes --]

Hi!

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 01:10:51PM +0200, Alex Colomar wrote:
> [CC += groff@, since it was CCd in the old conversation referred to here]
> 
> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On 7/27/22 17:32, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> > Alejandro Colomar wrote on Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 06:17:40PM +0200:
> >> I wondered for a long time what happens if you create subdirs within a
> >> man? section.  How do man(1)s handle </usr/share/man/man3/python/foo.3>?
> > On *BSD systems, that typically means:
> >
> >    The architecture-specific library function foo(3)
> >    for the "python" hardware architecture.
> >
> > Here are a few examples from OpenBSD:
> >
> >    /usr/share/man/man1/sparc64/mksuncd.1
> >    /usr/share/man/man2/armv7/arm_sync_icache.2
> >    /usr/share/man/man2/i386/i386_iopl.2
> >    /usr/share/man/man3/octeon/cacheflush.3
> >    /usr/share/man/man3/sgi/get_fpc_csr.3
> >    /usr/share/man/man4/alpha/irongate.4
> >    /usr/share/man/man4/amd64/mpbios.4
> >    /usr/share/man/man4/luna88k/cbus.4
> >    /usr/share/man/man4/macppc/openpic.4
> >    /usr/share/man/man4/powerpc64/opalcons.4
> >    /usr/share/man/man4/riscv64/sfgpio.4
> >    /usr/share/man/man5/sparc64/ldom.conf.5
> >    /usr/share/man/man8/hppa/boot.8
> >    /usr/share/man/man8/macppc/pdisk.8
> >    /usr/share/man/man8/sgi/sgivol.8
> >    /usr/share/man/man8/sparc64/ldomctl.8
> 
> 
> On 10/17/22 03:22, наб wrote:
> > Cf., well, the UNIX Programmer's Manual:
> >    https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dennis_v1/UNIX_ProgrammersManual_Nov71.pdf
> > PDF page 191; yes, the typographical convention here is insane, and
> > the contemprary-correct way to refer to this page from within the manual
> > would be /just/ "/etc/ascii", but, given the context, "/etc/ascii (VII)"
> > makes the most sense to me
> 
> I just saw this and wondered if the subdirs in the past were used as just
> part of the manual page name...

This typographical convention disappeared as early as V2;
the top-right page numbers were all trimmed to basename space section
(/etc/ascii (VII)        becomes ascii (VII)
 /dev/tty0 ... tty5 (IV) becomes tty0 (IV)
 &c.)

Cf.
https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dennis_v2/v2man.pdf

In the BSD side of the proverbial family tree I don't see anything
similar to what you describe until 4.4BSD which has bsd.man.mk MANSUBDIR
and uses it to install to MANDIR/manN/MANSUBDIR/page.N, and uses it
reasonably broadly for vax/sparc/whatever.
I think this is as present-day?

I don't see any on-line manuals in the SysIII/SysVr[1234] dumps I have,
so I assume these were distributed as books only, so idk.
Seeing as no arch-specific subdirectories survive in the illumos gate,
arch-only features are sometimes annotated "(not in 3B2)" inline,
and that the more esoteric pages have their center-top-page
(where you'd get "General Commands Manual" or whatever nowadays)
say like "(not on PDP-11)"/"(PDP-11 only)"/"(VAX stand-alone only)"/
"(3B20S only)" but are otherwise part of the same big book I assume
that never happened there.

Without context idk what you mean specifically but I hope this shines
some light or whatever.

Best,
наб

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Subdirs of man*/ (was: [PATCH] ascii.7: chase down History to earliest) (refers: man -M tcl)

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4607 bytes --]

Hi!

On 10/17/22 13:56, наб wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 01:10:51PM +0200, Alex Colomar wrote:
>> [CC += groff@, since it was CCd in the old conversation referred to here]
>> On 7/27/22 17:32, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>>> Alejandro Colomar wrote on Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 06:17:40PM +0200:
>>>> I wondered for a long time what happens if you create subdirs within a
>>>> man? section.  How do man(1)s handle </usr/share/man/man3/python/foo.3>?
>>> On *BSD systems, that typically means:
>>>
>>>     The architecture-specific library function foo(3)
>>>     for the "python" hardware architecture.
>>>
>>> Here are a few examples from OpenBSD:
>>>
>>>     /usr/share/man/man1/sparc64/mksuncd.1
>>>     /usr/share/man/man2/armv7/arm_sync_icache.2
>>>     /usr/share/man/man2/i386/i386_iopl.2
>>>     /usr/share/man/man3/octeon/cacheflush.3
>>>     /usr/share/man/man3/sgi/get_fpc_csr.3
>>>     /usr/share/man/man4/alpha/irongate.4
>>>     /usr/share/man/man4/amd64/mpbios.4
>>>     /usr/share/man/man4/luna88k/cbus.4
>>>     /usr/share/man/man4/macppc/openpic.4
>>>     /usr/share/man/man4/powerpc64/opalcons.4
>>>     /usr/share/man/man4/riscv64/sfgpio.4
>>>     /usr/share/man/man5/sparc64/ldom.conf.5
>>>     /usr/share/man/man8/hppa/boot.8
>>>     /usr/share/man/man8/macppc/pdisk.8
>>>     /usr/share/man/man8/sgi/sgivol.8
>>>     /usr/share/man/man8/sparc64/ldomctl.8
>>
>>
>> On 10/17/22 03:22, наб wrote:
>>> Cf., well, the UNIX Programmer's Manual:
>>>     https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dennis_v1/UNIX_ProgrammersManual_Nov71.pdf
>>> PDF page 191; yes, the typographical convention here is insane, and
>>> the contemprary-correct way to refer to this page from within the manual
>>> would be /just/ "/etc/ascii", but, given the context, "/etc/ascii (VII)"
>>> makes the most sense to me
>>
>> I just saw this and wondered if the subdirs in the past were used as just
>> part of the manual page name...
> 
> This typographical convention disappeared as early as V2;
> the top-right page numbers were all trimmed to basename space section
> (/etc/ascii (VII)        becomes ascii (VII)
>   /dev/tty0 ... tty5 (IV) becomes tty0 (IV)
>   &c.)
> 
> Cf.
> https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dennis_v2/v2man.pdf

Thanks!!

> 
> In the BSD side of the proverbial family tree I don't see anything
> similar to what you describe until 4.4BSD which has bsd.man.mk MANSUBDIR
> and uses it to install to MANDIR/manN/MANSUBDIR/page.N, and uses it
> reasonably broadly for vax/sparc/whatever.
> I think this is as present-day?

Yeah, it looks like.

> 
> I don't see any on-line manuals in the SysIII/SysVr[1234] dumps I have,
> so I assume these were distributed as books only, so idk.
> Seeing as no arch-specific subdirectories survive in the illumos gate,
> arch-only features are sometimes annotated "(not in 3B2)" inline,
> and that the more esoteric pages have their center-top-page
> (where you'd get "General Commands Manual" or whatever nowadays)
> say like "(not on PDP-11)"/"(PDP-11 only)"/"(VAX stand-alone only)"/
> "(3B20S only)" but are otherwise part of the same big book I assume
> that never happened there.
> 
> Without context idk what you mean specifically

It comes back to this linux-man@ (and groff@) discussion:
<https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/66c19a09-ef0f-0d85-0380-37a67ac483dd@gmail.com/>

There, Ingo talked about some idea he had:
<https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/Yt1dz0+xfRuyCcXo@asta-kit.de/>

And we continued in this subthread, which was renamed:
<https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/9e8a291d-672f-baec-3980-ae265712bd7b@gmail.com/>

Basically it can be resumed like this:

I started adding mandirs such as man3type, man3const, man3head; and we 
were discussing if that was a good organization, and if it would fit 
nicely into other existing things like 3bsd, 3perl, 3posix, ...

Also, having perl or python (or even posix) man pages open up by default 
or mess with autocomplete is not so nice when you're not interested in 
reading them.

So a solution I had thought would be to use subdirs, so you could for 
example:

$ man [-s] 3const foo       # manual for constant foo in C.
$ man [-s] 3const perl/foo  # manual for constant foo in perl.

Ingo's idea is to use:

$ man 3const foo
$ man -M perl [-s] 3const foo

which is compatible with the current use of MANSUBDIRs in the BSDs.

> but I hope this shines
> some light or whatever.

Yep, it helps :)

Cheers,

Alex

-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] ascii.7: chase down History to earliest

[наб]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1274 bytes --]

Hi!

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 01:02:01PM +0200, Alex Colomar wrote:
> On 10/17/22 12:56, наб wrote:
> > So no, (7) is wrong because it's (VII)
> > (indeed, arabic numbers started in V7).
> > It's not bold because you can't do that on a typewriter.
> > You could make the argument for it being together,
> > but the prevailing convention is either no section at all or
> > space-before-section, and the page number has the space.
> 
> I guess you're referring to the old convention (from TUPM)?  In this case
> it's a bit weird because we're referring to an old manual page from a new
> manual page, so I don't know if we should use the old syntax or the new
> one...  We now have better (or different) capabilities (bold), and arabic
> numbers, so we could take advantage of them...  But maybe that could
> confuse...  I guess I'll go with what you prefer, since you're writing it,
> and I'm not sure.

Yes, I think respecting the original page number
(which, while very funny spelling-wise, is very much what it is;
 cf. the first issue of the X/Open Portability Guide,
 which numbers pages as "BSEARCH(3C).3" in Part II, for example)
as it was written ‒ "/etc/ascii (VII)" ‒
is bibliographically the most correct thing to do here.

наб

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] ascii.7: chase down History to earliest

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1443 bytes --]

Hi!

On 10/25/22 17:21, наб wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 01:02:01PM +0200, Alex Colomar wrote:
>> On 10/17/22 12:56, наб wrote:
>>> So no, (7) is wrong because it's (VII)
>>> (indeed, arabic numbers started in V7).
>>> It's not bold because you can't do that on a typewriter.
>>> You could make the argument for it being together,
>>> but the prevailing convention is either no section at all or
>>> space-before-section, and the page number has the space.
>>
>> I guess you're referring to the old convention (from TUPM)?  In this case
>> it's a bit weird because we're referring to an old manual page from a new
>> manual page, so I don't know if we should use the old syntax or the new
>> one...  We now have better (or different) capabilities (bold), and arabic
>> numbers, so we could take advantage of them...  But maybe that could
>> confuse...  I guess I'll go with what you prefer, since you're writing it,
>> and I'm not sure.
> 
> Yes, I think respecting the original page number
> (which, while very funny spelling-wise, is very much what it is;
>   cf. the first issue of the X/Open Portability Guide,
>   which numbers pages as "BSEARCH(3C).3" in Part II, for example)
> as it was written ‒ "/etc/ascii (VII)" ‒
> is bibliographically the most correct thing to do here.

Makes sense.  Patch applied.

Cheers,
Alex

> 
> наб

-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]