Follow-up Comment #2, bug #68668 (group groff): At 2026-10-13T08:44:59-0400, Deri James wrote: > Follow-up Comment #1, bug #68668 (group groff): > > Would it make sense to standardise the macro names across ms, me, mm? > UR/UE (as in 'man') seems available:- > > .UR url > ... > .UE
I've been having similar thoughts! Doing that might make _grog_(1)'s job harder, but should make almost everyone else's job easier. > I'm not sure we need a separate MT/ME since .UR _mailto:deri@chuzz_ > wuld work. As far as I can tell, the only reason `MT`/`ME` is separately defined in man(7) is because the scheme part of the URL (and the colon after it) doesn't get rendered when the hyperlink is reused as link text. Possibly, a better design would be to extend the API of `UR`: .UR url [suppress-scheme] ...where _suppress-scheme_ is an integer of Boolean sense directing aforesaid suppression. We could backport this to man(7). .de1 MT . UR \\$1 1 .. ...and then, eventually, maybe deprecate and withdraw `MT` and `ME` altogether. This is not the first time I've felt that Eric Raymond's _man_(7) innovations circa 2009 were inadequately thought out. For namespace consistency, we'd need to spell `UR` and `UE` as `ur` and `ue` in _me_(7). _groff_me_(7): Name space Objects in me follow a rigid naming convention. To avoid conflict, any user‐defined register, string, or macro names should be single numerals or uppercase letters, or any longer sequence of letters and numerals with at least one uppercase letter. (For portability between BSD and groff me, limit names to two characters, and avoid the name [ (left square bracket).) The names employed by any preprocessors in use should also not be repurposed. What do you think? _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68668> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
