On Thursday 2023-10-26 14:26, Phil Sutter wrote: >> @@ -8,24 +8,34 @@ Match an operating system genre by using a passive fingerprinting. >> \fB\-\-ttl\fP \fIlevel\fP >> Do additional TTL checks on the packet to determine the operating system. >> \fIlevel\fP can be one of the following values: >> -.IP \(bu 4 >> -0 - True IP address and fingerprint TTL comparison. This generally works for >> +.RS >> +.TP >> +\fB0\fP > >What is wrong with '.B' here? I assumed it is equivalent to the escapes >(which I don't like for making things unreadable in most cases). One can make lots of arguments for both sides. * You cannot mix certain commands. This for example cannot be converted to use .B syntax as far as my understanding of roff syntax goes: .TP Some \fBbold\fP keyword Explanation what they keyword does .TP Some .B bold keyword but oops we are already in the explanation * Desire for consistent markup across entire documentation; since we cannot use .B reliably, \fB offered to take the place and so almost all the mantext in iptables uses \fB. * .B (and commands like it) bloat the line count if you have a lot of words to markup, and we certainly do in e.g. the "Synopsis" sections. * \(en could be changed to \[en] or to the Unicode character directly. But the groff manpage has ample warnings: """these groff extensions are presented using its special character form \[]""" """Some of these code points are used by groff for internal purposes, which is one reason it does not support UTF‐8 natively.""" I need to revise the \[-] patch perhaps based on what I just learned. That said, it's 2023. People _should_ be having a syntax-highlighting editor, and I don't mean it needs to have fancy colors. Just set escape codes apart (brighten or dimming, whichever is your thing), e.g. https://paste.opensuse.org/pastes/b593dd7ee4db .
