[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] UTP markup

From: Meg McRoberts
Subject: Re: [Groff] UTP markup
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:47:44 -0700 (PDT)

I am a professional scribe with time on my hands -- would be
happy to do some stylistic editing.  I must confess that I
don't quite know what the UTP is -- I've been lurking here
hoping that all would become clear...

Is this documentation available for viewing on the web?  I
downloaded the groff-current stuff but am having some trouble
getting it to build.  I've always had tools people who dealt
with this stuff, I'm afraid.

Reading through the source code, I have spotted a few little
things that could be improved.  One big item is a statement
that UNIX is a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories.  AT&T
Bell Laboratories hasn't existed for some time.  I believe
the UNIX trademark is owned by X/Open.  Caldera obtained
ownership of the UNIX sourcecode when it acquired SCO.  Nice
mess, eh?

With the caveat that I'm more familiar with mm macros than me,
I'd be happy to work with anyone on some of this picayune writing
stuff but I need suggestions for dealing with the mechanics.


--- Jon Snader <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 11:31:43PM -0500, Michael Hobgood wrote:
> > A few questions concerning the markup of the UTP:
> > 
> >     1. How close to the original are we trying
> > to get? For example, do we correct typos that we 
> > find (typos, not out of date material)?
> Now that the macros are done (err, almost done) I think it's
> time to discuss this.  Personally I would like to honor the
> style of the original book as much as possible, but I don't
> think we have to be exact and I certainly don't think we
> should be bug compatible by preserving typos.
> >     2. Do we want to keep the page contents
> > and the page numbers the same?  If so, what
> > are the dimensions used in the original? 
> I don't think the page numbers have to be exactly the same.
> My guess is that it would be pretty hard anyway without the
> exact macros used originally.
> >     3. Given that the UTP macros don't produce
> > the exact same look in some areas as the original
> > (i.e Chapter etc), is it alright to forgo some of the
> > boxes drawn around the example outputs?
> I'm willing to work on getting the Chapter headings to look
> like the original if people want to do that.  I was behind
> in getting the macros out to everyone, so I decided to skip
> that detail for the time being.  Same with the SS and SE
> macros.  I don't think we necessarily have to reproduce those
> headings, but I'll be happy to work on it if others do want
> to maintain that style.  In the mean time, just use the macros
> as is.  If we do change, I'll just add a special UTP chapter
> format and alias it to the format_section macro in the utp
> macro.  That way, nothing will have to change in the source
> files.
> >     4. Over the chapters I've worked with, I've
> > noticed several inconsistencies in the way the
> > original was formatted.  Do I attempt to match these
> > or just pick one style and go with it?  Some of the
> > ones I've noticed include: some example command lines
> > are bolded, others aren't, some of the material that
> > uses the .Ps/.Pe indentation in one place, won't have
> > it in another place.
> > 
> This is one place I think we can ``improve'' on the original.
> I think it's more important to have a consistent style than
> to exactly reproduce the original.  Unfortunately, what we
> really need here is an editor who can look at the work as a
> whole and fix up the inconsistencies.  At the very least, we
> should settle on some ground rules on the list so that everyone
> can do pretty much the same thing.  Maybe the people working on
> the individual chapters can inform the list of what they propose
> to do, and we can thrash it out that way.
> Jon Snader
> _______________________________________________
> Groff maillist  -  address@hidden

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]