From: "Lex Trotman" <[email protected]> : Monday, August 08, 2016 1:00 AM
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 HTML version looks fine (which is the one I normaly see on
Git-for-Windows)
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 a topic in the
Google Groups "asciidoc" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/asciidoc/lKamxEvmBzo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
