Hi! On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 01:02:01PM +0200, Alex Colomar wrote: > On 10/17/22 12:56, наб wrote: > > 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. > > I guess you're referring to the old convention (from TUPM)? In this case > it's a bit weird because we're referring to an old manual page from a new > manual page, so I don't know if we should use the old syntax or the new > one... We now have better (or different) capabilities (bold), and arabic > numbers, so we could take advantage of them... But maybe that could > confuse... I guess I'll go with what you prefer, since you're writing it, > and I'm not sure. Yes, I think respecting the original page number (which, while very funny spelling-wise, is very much what it is; cf. the first issue of the X/Open Portability Guide, which numbers pages as "BSEARCH(3C).3" in Part II, for example) as it was written ‒ "/etc/ascii (VII)" ‒ is bibliographically the most correct thing to do here. наб
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
