On 8 August 2016 at 09:29, <[email protected]> wrote: > While preparing a Git documentation update it has been brought to my > attention that the manpage output for a second level heading isn't > propagating the bold to the end of the line when the heading contains a > coded code segment e.g. > > Other '<rev>{caret}' Shorthand Notations > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > This was analysed by one of the devs who said > (https://www.mail-archive.com/git%40vger.kernel.org/msg98190.html):- > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:41:35PM +0100, Philip Oakley wrote: > >> > > +The '{caret}' (caret) notation >> > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > > To exclude commits reachable from a commit, a prefix '{caret}' >> > > notation is used. E.g. '{caret}r1 r2' means commits reachable >> > > from 'r2' but exclude the ones reachable from 'r1'. >> > >> > All of these headings render poorly in the manpage, at least for me >> > (Ubuntu 16.04). Only the first word appears in bold; the '-quoted text >> > is not bold but underlined, and the rest of the header is plain. >> >> Which doc package is that with? It had formatted OK for the html web >> pages. > > I get the same with: > > make gitrevisions.7 > man -l gitrevisions.7 > > Asciidoc 8.6.9, docbook-xsl 4.5 if it matters. > > Rendering single-quotes as underline is normal in this case (though it's > not great for punctuation like this, as it kind of blends with the dots; > I know we use it elsewhere in this document, though). The failure to > continue the bold through the end of line looks like a bug, though. > > The generated XML (from asciidoc) looks reasonable: > > <title>The <emphasis>..</emphasis> (two-dot) range notation</title> > > The roff looks like: > > .SS "The \fI\&.\&.\fR (two\-dot) range notation"
I very much suspect its the docbook-xsl thats the problem, but just check that the docbook from asciidoc is correct first. > > The "\fR" switches us back to "Roman" from italics, which is presumably > the problem. We really want to say "switch back what we were using > before \fI". > > Switching it to "\fP" fixes it, but it's not clear to me if that's > actually portable, or a groff-ism. I don't know roff very well and > documentation seems to be quite hard to find. So it's either a bug in > docbook, or an intentional decision they've made because roff can't > portably do better. I'm not sure which. > > Should the formatting work for manpages? if not, what to do? > -- > Philip > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "asciidoc" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
