Hi Branden, G. Branden Robinson wrote on Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 09:59:20PM -0500:
> commit b447d738fb65168ef8ccda2a89555425ebe6aa4a > Author: G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> > Date: Tue Nov 13 11:36:13 2018 -0500 [...] > + Set "@g@nroff", "groff", "grotty", and "locale"(1) in > italics, not bold or roman. [...] > -.B @g@nroff > +.I @g@nroff I think these particular B -> I changes are wrong and ought to be reverted. The fundamental rule for syntax elements (somewhat simplified) is that bold is for syntax elements that have to be typed verbatim (like command line options, keywords, type specifiers, function names, ...) and italics/underlined is for placeholders for syntax elements that the user has to replace by something else (like function argument placeholders, command line argument placeholders, ...). In any case, command names are among the most typical cases of syntax elements absolutely requiring bold face. That is not only very firmly established in manual pages but a widespread convention in printed books about programming as well. Even Michael Kerrisk agrees with that: https://man.openbsd.org/?query=Nd~.&apropos=1&sec=1&manpath=Linux-4.13 Yours, Ingo P.S. Much less important: manual page cross references do not require any font changes at all. All parts of them can be set in the default roman font because the section number in parentheses already makes the word stand out. Some use boldface for such cross references anyway, which looks unnecessarily heavy to me, but which i don't care that strongly about. As opposed to abusing italics, at least that is not misleading.
