Hi,
B 9 wrote on Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:59:32PM -0700:
> Since you had such excellent suggestions, I'd like your advice about
> something I've noticed: printed materials often omit the protocol when
> it is "https://"; or "http://";. That makes sense to me and I am
> inclined to change the way t
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 02:41:13PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Subject: Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?
>
> > .URL https://foo.bar.com/fred/juki/
> >
> > would be displayed (in PDF, HTML, and nroff) as simply
> >
> > foo.bar.com/fred/juki/
> >
> > Steve, wh
Hi Steve,
Steve Izma wrote on Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:26:46AM -0400:
> But the question here is how to *display* a URL in text and my
> rule of thumb is to reduce the size of the displayed URL as much
> as possible.
There is nothing wrong with the document author doing that in cases
where it wor
B 9 wrote:
> Steve Izma wrote:
> Since you had such excellent suggestions, I'd like your advice about
> something I've noticed: printed materials often omit the protocol when
> it is "https://"; or "http://";. That makes sense to me and I am
> inclined to change the way the .URL macro in the WWW
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 01:48:02PM -0400, T. Kurt Bond wrote:
> Subject: Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?
>
> > Everyone: Would anyone object if .URL used this strategy for cleaner
> > typesetting?
>
> Please don't do this: there are still web sites out there that only
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:18:58PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Subject: Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?
>
Re: changing the URL submitted by an author so that it fits
typographical requirements.
> There is nothing wrong with the document author doing that in cases
> w
* On 2020 10 Jul 10:27 -0500, Steve Izma wrote:
> I think it's an abomination that a man page extends it's line
> length to fit the width of the terminal; built into the macros
> should be a 65- or 70 character maximum width. It's interesting
> that the Python Style Guide insists on a maximum line
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:39:32PM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> Subject: Re: Groff macro to make .UR and .UE links clickable in PDF?
>
> * On 2020 10 Jul 10:27 -0500, Steve Izma wrote:
> > I think it's an abomination that a man page extends it's line
> > length to fit the width of the terminal;..
At 2020-05-30T01:29:18+1000, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Our an-ext.tmac (extensions to the man macros) says:
>
> .\" The code below provides extension macros for the 'man' macro
> .\" package. Care has been taken to make the code portable; groff
> .\" extensions are properly hidden so that all
Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Yes, i do strongly object.
You make good points, Ingo. Let me see if I can answer your concerns.
> I think it is very bad practice to omit the protocol from an URI.
> For one thing, it results in invalid URI syntax.
I am only talking about the display. When hovering ove
By the way, at least one authority backs up my intuition that the
protocol should be usually omitted: The Modern Language Association.
According to the MLA Handbook, URLs should always remove the "http://";.
Excerpt from style.mla.org/urls-some-practical-advice/
MLA's Guidelines on Truncating
11 matches
Mail list logo
