> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:34 AM Mateusz Piotrowski <0...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On 6/15/20 2:33 PM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ] > > >> Author: fernape (ports committer) > > >> Date: Mon Jun 15 10:08:02 2020 > > >> New Revision: 362191 > > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/362191 > > >> > > >> Log: > > >> md5(1): fix style in man page > > > > > > Mandoc is fine to ignore this, but it is wrong to call it useless. > > > > > > I really wish that this stop. .Tn might be useless to mandoc, > > > but it is a very usable thing if your formatting to something > > > other than txt, as in a ps or pdf. > > > > In that case I would consider patching our in-tree mandoc to not warn > > about Tn. Or request support for Tn or a well-defined replacement upstream. > > > > I can see the benefit of keeping Tn around, as it /might/ potentially > > create nice formatting for HTML. On the other hand, I don't like the > > idea of not following the linter. > > > > I thought that Tn thing was the general consensus thing and added to the > linter because of that. The man page explains why it's problematic: > > Tn word ... > Supported only for compatibility, do not use this in new manuals. > Even though the macro name ("tradename") suggests a semantic > function, historic usage is inconsistent, mostly using it as a > presentation-level macro to request a small caps font.
I believe that comes about because of confusion over trade name vs trademark. They are not defined as the same thing. > It was useful for the Unix trademark, but was tailor towards AT&T's > preferred dressing for the Unix trademark, not for trademarks in general. Crossing tradename with trademark? > In this case, there were several instances of abuse: > > -.Tn RSA . > +key under a public-key cryptosystem such as RSA. trade name: noun 1. the name used by a manufacturer, merchant, service company, farming business, etc., to identify itself individually as a business. 2. a word or phrase used in a trade to designate a business, service, or a particular class of goods, but that is not technically a trademark, either because it is not susceptible of exclusive appropriation as a trademark or because it is not affixed to goods sold in the market. 3. the name by which an article or substance is known to the trade. I would say RSA defanitly meets 3, and probably 2. > > Not a trademark in this context. RSA is a trademark for the RSA corporation > and it uses it in various other contexts. > > -The > -.Tn MD5 > -and > -.Tn SHA-1 > -algorithms have been proven to be vulnerable to practical collision > -attacks and should not be relied upon to produce unique outputs, > +The MD5 and SHA-1 algorithms have been proven to be vulnerable to practical > +collision attacks and should not be relied upon to produce unique outputs, > > MD5 and SHA-1 are not trade names in this context. The rest seem similar, > though I've not gone to the trouble to look them all up. I would disagree under the definition of trade name above, you seem to be applying the definition of trade mark. > > All in all, while I have some sympathy to Rod's view that we're losing > semantic information by these changes in general, this particular one > actually fixes the abuse talked about in the mdoc manual, IMHO. Only if the macro is rigidly defined as "trademark" and it is not. > Warner -- Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"