>> Any feel for how many man pages would be affected by the .hygiene
>> command?
>
> Based on doclifter's conversion failure rate, no more than 6%. But
> the unhygienic set can be tuned so the error rate is below that by
> failing to exclude constructs that we decide to consider rare but
> kosher. I think 3% would be easily achievable and acceptable.
Please do me a favour: Don't call this `hygienic'. Say `restricted'
instead. Today, technical English for software must satisfy some
constraints, IMHO, and one of them is the avoidance of `colourful'
terms that might call unwanted associations, especially if there are
alternatives that are equivalent or even better suited to the task at
hand.
Another aspect is translations: At least in German, it sounds
extremely odd to use `hygienic' for the intended context.
Werner
