Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 02:25:11PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Actually, looking closer, the information seems to be lost entirely. >> > Asciidoc renders this to <literal> in the XML, but docbook seems to >> > throw it away when converting to a manpage. In theory it's possible to >> > apply our own xsl style to turn this into something else, and I think >> > that is a better solution than just trying to fix this one spot. >> >> When I check the asciidoc output for manpages (which I rarely do), I often >> render it to Postscript to see the typesetting. I guess not many people >> consider manpages are for printing anymore but are solely for monospaced >> terminal consumption these days. > > How do you render it? From the XML, or from the roff? Because if I am > reading it right (which it is entirely possible that I am not), the > information is lost in the roff version. And that is the version I would > expect people to be looking at (via man -Tps, or just plain man). I was agreeing with you; I let "man -Tps -l git-foo.1" render from roff input and I can see that the output from asciidoc toolchain) prepared as roff input does not consider printed pages so important anymore. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
