> > I would prefer to hold macOS up to ridicule in this respect in hopes of > motivating its users (and developers) to standardize on something.
By "standardise", are you specifically referring to a *de jure* standard? macOS's x-man-page:// scheme is only a *de facto* standard, but it's by far the oldest, best-known, and widely-supported man-page URL scheme on macOS, even recently. Yes, but you have actually encountered these in practical experience. It wasn't a practical encounter. I was actively researching how authors have approached the issue of man-page hyperlinks in the past (not just on macOS, but *any* Unix-like system). I did this to make Roff.js's URI handling functions as airtight as possible. That creates more places for something to go wrong. > Yeah, true. Forget about the callback idea, then. :-) BTW, what file should I apply your patch to? I'm getting an error when I attempt to apply it: $ git apply ~/Downloads/macOS-man-grief.diff error: patch failed: tmac/man.local:14 error: tmac/man.local: patch does not apply Remember, this is with the latest Groff sources, which still aren't building successfully on macOS… On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 06:55, G. Branden Robinson < g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi John, > > At 2023-02-07T06:26:22+1100, John Gardner wrote: > > Then how about a callback? It could be called with the relevant > > parameters, and authors can use plain ol' Roff to specify the > > hyperlink format. > > That creates more places for something to go wrong. Also I don't want > people to get the idea that they should be defining this callback _in > the man page document_. That is very much the wrong way to go. > > > I think we're on two different pages here. That last list of URL > > formats was intended to illustrate the potential for variation amidst > > software authors. It's very easy for somebody to "invent" their own > > man page URL scheme, one that may be partially- or wholly-incompatible > > with other, better-established schemes. > > Yes, but you have actually encountered these in practical experience. > > > Ultimately, only Terminal.app's scheme (x-man-page://) should be taken > > seriously by Groff. > > I would prefer to hold macOS up to ridicule in this respect in hopes of > motivating its users (and developers) to standardize on something.[1] > What I'm calling "format 1" would be best, but I know that NIH syndrome > dominates a lot of corporate software development. And some elsewhere. > > If I had to use macOS for some reason, I'd go out of my way to use xterm > rather than Terminal.app. Lack of man page hyperlinks is not a deal- > breaker for me personally. I have not begun a campaign to talk Thomas > Dickey into supporting OSC 8 in xterm. I do not expect it to be easy. > > > > apropos(1) is not in groff's department. > > > > Right, sorry. I keep getting my wires crossed when discussing man(1) > > and Groff at once… > > No worries. I think a lot of people are fuzzy about the distinction, so > opportunities like this to set the record straight are to be seized. :) > > Regards, > Branden > > [1] You can see that I'd be brilliant in corporate communications. >
