Hi Branden,
as an author of manpages for command-line utilities,
I want to type e.g. `this' into a manpage source like `this'
because that's exactly what you type on the cmdline
and that's what I want the user to read in the manpage.
To be sure: are you proposing that manpage authors
type something else than `that', or that formatters
display something else? Having to type anything else
(in the name of good typography) is making me jump through hoops.
I'm all for good typography. In a book,
I expect to see l'beautiful apostrophe if
Patricia's nipples turned rigid as soon as
Reginald's strong hands touched them
or whatever.
But in a manpage, I want to just type e.g. ` and the formatter
to display ` and the reader to see ` because that's what
you type when you run the command.
> > > 6. Revert the change an un-fix the misuses of ` and ' in code
> > > specimens that I've been repairing for the past few years.
What "misuse"?
> With the above, you are, in fact, saying something that there _is_
> something deeply wrong, _with me_, for wanting good typography in man
> pages and wanting a way to manifest it on my terminal screen without
> forking groff.
Having `this' in a manpage is perfectly good typography,
because that's exatly what you type when you use the command.
I don't see any benefit in having to type or display something else.
What do you argue _is_ the benefit? A more beautiful manpage that
says something else than what it wants to say?
> > manual pages are written by software developers,
> > not by typesetters, who are used to typing programming languages
> > and who are used to the fact, from the past, that these five
> > characters do not need escaping.
Exactly.
Jan
