> Von: "Ralph Corderoy" <[email protected]> > > I'm not sure there's enough here to justify a new man page.
If you do not want a new man-page I can do it as a contrib-project. > probably end up having to state all the oddities and exceptions. Some oddities are already documented. > > These extensions are fixed in all Unix-like operating systems. > > I don't think they're are fixed in that many things don't care what > extension is used. Man-page filenames need the fixed structure in order to find and read them. > > Each roff file can be optionally compressed. > > I don't think groff handles compressed files? If something like man(1) > does and decompresses them before groff see them then it isn't a groff > thing. groffer handles compressions as well (without .xz so far). > > > The traditional "<section>" is a digit from 1 to 8. > > Covered by man-pages(7). The group extensions after the sectiopn number are not documented there, although they are havily used by man(1). > > There are 2 styles for writing man pages: "man" and "mdoc". These 2 > > extensions are used in the source code package of groff. > > > > <name>.man traditional man-page format > > <name>.mdoc additional man-page format > > <name>.mandoc recognizing both man-page formats > > That they're used in the source of groff isn't sufficient to document > them? They are also used by BSD without groff. Moreover it would be nice to add the extensions to the Emacs nroff-mode. Meanwhile groff-filenames.man is ready. I can publish it. I think this man-page does not do any harm. But a lacking documentation is a weakness. Imagine what would happen in Linux systems without the FHS. I could also use this documentation as part of groffer. Reliable filename extensions would be very nice for grog and groffer. Bernd Warken
