[bug #55278] src/devices/grotty/grotty.1.man, doc/groff.texi updates

[Dave]

URL:
  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?55278>

                 Summary: src/devices/grotty/grotty.1.man, doc/groff.texi
updates
                 Project: GNU troff
            Submitted by: barx
            Submitted on: Mon 24 Dec 2018 06:26:00 PM CST
                Category: Core
                Severity: 3 - Normal
              Item Group: Documentation
                  Status: None
                 Privacy: Public
             Assigned to: None
             Open/Closed: Open
         Discussion Lock: Any
         Planned Release: None

    _______________________________________________________

Details:

Three proposed documentation changes submitted for discussion.

1. src/devices/grotty/grotty.1.man

Part of the documentation for -i says "most terminals (including xterm) don't
support this."

No doubt this was true when it was added (Feb 2002, commit
e30e96cf2e61dc8dced25f426b7615573916eee4), but today it's not true of at least
xterm or MacOS's Terminal.  Is it true of enough modern terminals to reduce it
down to "many terminals" or "some terminals"?  Or should it just be removed
altogether?

2. doc/groff.texi

Part of the documentation for -a says "this option is rather useless today
since graphic output devices are available virtually everywhere."  This seems
a needless bit of editorializing -- and of questionable accuracy: see threads
starting at

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2018-02/msg00028.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2018-02/msg00042.html

For one, this sentence implies that -a output has no use besides as a poor
substitute for graphical output.  And the ubiquity of graphic-output devices
doesn't mean you're working in a session that has easy access to one (e.g.,
over ssh).

The simplest fix is to axe this sentence.  A better fix might be to give the
user ideas on how the option enables tasks (e.g., allowing easy diffs of
typeset output; grepping for widows; automated regression testing; probably
more) that are difficult or impossible with PostScript and PDF output.

3. doc/groff.texi

Underlining by overstrike is described as "printing an underline character,
then moving the caret back one character position, and printing the actual
character at the same position as the underline character."

I'm betting "moving the caret back" was intended to say "moving the cursor
back."  If so, probably shortening it to "moving back" is just as clear (and
arguably more accurate, as there's no cursor involved).  Note that the prior
wording of this phrase (changed in 58e63bf373fbf31765e62a0e05fab686ab395898)
was exactly that.




    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?55278>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/