Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) left as an exercise for the reader: > As I understand it, it's there because CSI is not a CSI-prefixed sequence > (i.e., you have to first document CSI itself, and then in a different list > you can document sequences prefixed by CSI). > So I'd say it belongs there. except this is literally in the table named "ESC- but not CSI-sequences". and it's not, by itself, a sequence. and it's detailed in the "ECMA-48 CSI Sequences" section below. so it is documented, near where it's relevant. IMHO. if we're going to keep it, we ought add OSC to this section by the same reasoning. i can do that and send a fresh patch, or you can do it to my patch, or we can do with what i have. > Maybe it should go into a separate subsection called "Operating system > commands"? well, there are only these few, and they are "ESC- but not CSI sequences". i don't honestly think the average reader cares whether something is a CSI or an OSC or linux-specific control sequence, especially since there's really no user-relevant reason as to why one is in any given group. but i can go ahead and break this section out if you'd like. put another way, some people might read the man page wanting to know "how do i change a color". i can't imagine anyone ever wanting to know "what are the various OSC-prefixed commands?" that said, i'm happy to introduce the substructure if it gets the formatting fixed =]. -- nick black -=- https://www.nick-black.com to make an apple pie from scratch, you need first invent a universe.
