Hi! On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 11:58:06AM +0200, Alex Colomar wrote: > On 10/17/22 03:22, наб wrote: > > Cf., well, the UNIX Programmer's Manual: > > https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dennis_v1/UNIX_ProgrammersManual_Nov71.pdf > > PDF page 191; yes, the typographical convention here is insane, and > > the contemprary-correct way to refer to this page from within the manual > > would be /just/ "/etc/ascii", but, given the context, "/etc/ascii (VII)" > > makes the most sense to me > > > > --- a/man7/ascii.7 > > +++ b/man7/ascii.7 > > @@ -134,9 +134,7 @@ F: / ? O _ o DEL > > .fi > > .SH NOTES > > .SS History > > -An > > -.B ascii > > -manual page appeared in Version 7 of AT&T UNIX. > > +/etc/ascii (VII) appears in the UNIX Programmer's Manual. > > I wonder if '.BR /etc/ascii (7)' wouldn't be better. > > Also, shouldn't we clarify the Version 7 of the UNIX Programmer's Manual? > Or was it only called that way in V7? I ignore much of history about those > times, but I guess older versions also used the exact same title, right? uhhhh, what do you mean Version 7? This appears in /the/ UNIX Programmer's Manual. Before they were versioned or whatever. So no, (7) is wrong because it's (VII) (indeed, arabic numbers started in V7). It's not bold because you can't do that on a typewriter. You could make the argument for it being together, but the prevailing convention is either no section at all or space-before-section, and the page number has the space. Best, наб
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
