The 5/6 may be a relatively recent consensus based on peer monitoring. UTP
doesn't mention 5/6, for instance. It has its own (slightly less) strange
fraction though: 11/12 (see p. 606). When it came to FL, it was a Wild West out
there back then, I tell ya.
--d
On Sunday, November 15, 2020, 06:58:34 AM EST, G. Branden Robinson
<g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> wrote:
At 2020-11-13T13:59:27-0500, T. Kurt Bond wrote:
> Is there any chance of the footnote ratio change I discuss getting in
> the upcoming groff release? Should I add it as a bug at
> savannah.gnu.org?
Probably a good idea. As you may be aware, I am updating and expanding
Larry Kollar's ms.ms document with an eye to its inclusion in groff
1.23.0.
Due to the way I work, this has involved me learning a lot about ms and
its history.
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 11:53 AM T. Kurt Bond <tkurtb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > groff_ms(7) says that changing the number register FL is effective
> > at the next footnote. That seems to be true only for one column
> > text.
This behavior is worth trying to reproduce in Heirloom Doctools troff.
> > In multicolumn text you have to change the undocumented fn:MCLL
> > after calling .MC. fn:MCLL is an alias for the number register
> > pg@fn-colw, which is set when .MC is called. (.2C calls .MC to do
> > the work, so we only have to worry about .MC.)
> >
> > Is fn:MCLL intended to be ms internal use only, or is intended to be
> > available to users?
Definitely internal. This is clearly documented in the in-progress
rewrite (alas, it's not committed yet). I'm attaching it, and let's see
if I remember to actually do so before sending.
> > I don't like having the line length of the footnotes only 5/6 the
> > width of the columns: I like them to be the full width of the
> > current line, whether that is in one column mode or multicolumn
> > mode. I'd like to be able to change that default, to avoid having
> > to change the footnote line length in multicolumn mode using the
> > undocumented fn:MCLL.
I think the reason for this 5/6 ratio is because that's what AT&T ms did
in the 1970s, and possibly every ms implementation ever since.
> > I propose adding a string variable, FR (footnote ratio), that
> > defaults to to 5/6 for compatibility and replaces the uses of the
> > literal 5/6 for setting footnote line length. You can set this at
> > the beginning of your document, or before each .MC or .2C. For my
> > use I'd always set it to 1, making the footnote line length the same
> > as the line length.
> >
> > (I think making setting FR effective before the next footnote, like
> > setting FL in one column mode, would take rewriting par@reset to
> > recalculate fn:MCLL every time, instead of just after a .MC.)
I'm not entirely sure what to do about this. How much fidelity to AT&T
ms behavior do people expect from ms? I've begun to surmise that the
answer is "a lot less than they expect from man(7) documents".
Regards,
Branden
