Hi Colin, At 2024-11-03T00:47:23+0000, Colin Watson wrote: > (That's leaving aside things like localized man pages, which I know > some folks on the groff list tend to sniff I can think of only one, the maintainer of a rival formatter. ;-) > at but I think they're important, Me too. I agree with the sniffer that no language is ever likely to reach 100% parity with English in something like the Debian distribution, but more modest domains exist. I've put effort into l10n issues in man(7) and in groff generally. In particular, I really want seamless multilingual document support and achievement of that goal will be, I think, much closer in groff 1.24. (My pending push is gated on deciding how to change the me(7) and ms(7) packages to accommodate a formatter-level fix to an ugly wart in the l10n department; see <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66387>.) > and the fact that the NAME section has both semantic and > presentational meaning means that like it or not the parser needs to > be aware of this.) Even if mandb(8) doesn't run groff to extract the summary descriptions/ apropos lines, I think this feature might be useful to you for coverage/regression testing. Presumably, for valid inputs, groff and mandb(8) should reach similar conclusions about how the text of a "Name" section is to be formatted. Regards, Branden
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
