just a notice, several years ago (1987 ?) a problem with theses backtics where noticed and $( .. ) was introduced to replace them. before you start to replace every backtic it may more resonable to replace it with $( .. )
re, wh Michael Kerrisk wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Personally, I would prefer that quotes render sensibly in utf8, html >>> and dvi, and that correctly written man pages do not need any >>> modification. Also, the use of `foo' is very convenient (even if it >>> no longer appears balanced in the source). >> Let me try to summarize: >> >> . What people like to input in man pages is this: >> >> `foo' should be equal to \[oq]foo\[cq] >> >> \`foo\' should be equal to <ASCII 0x60>foo<ASCII 0x27> >> >> I say `in man pages' because \` and \' act as accents too, but >> this is, AFAIK, not used (a quick search in the man pages on my >> SuSE GNU/Linux box showed not a single man file which uses \' or >> \` as an accent). >> >> . Depending on the output device, ` and ' should be mapped to >> different characters. However, \` and \' should always map to >> ASCII 0x60 and ASCII 0x27 for proper cut and paste support. >> >> Do you all agree with this? > > This all sounds reasonable. If needed I will adapt the 800 or so > (Section 2, 3, 4, 5, 7) pages in man-pages to whatever input form is > needed (provded it is not a heavy form -- e.g., not troff > conditionals), so long as I can get what I consider to be decent > *output*. That is, balanced single quotes in ASCII (that probably > means the equivalent of \(aq...\(aq ), and balanced quotes in UTF-8 > (as can currently be obtained by `...'). > > Cheers, > > Michael >
