In Savannah #61437[1], Bjarni asserted that our groff(7) page was wrong to say that the \d and \r escape sequence move in vees (the documentation of the \u escape sequence did not draw his comment and the default scaling unit of \v [vees], did not draw his comment).
After a bit of back and forth, I found myself surprised by groff's behavior. It seemed Bjarni was right, and we're moving in ems after all, and a commit I made in May claiming errata in CSTR#54 was wrong was therefore in error[2]. But our source code does indeed request nodes of the "vmotion" type[3][4], and when I tried to turn to Heirloom troff to try to find support for one practice or the other, I was dismayed to find a third, possibly. My attempt to illuminate the issue by drawing a baseline rule also illuminated a difference between Heirloom and groff regarding where the baseline is. Here's my input document. .sp 2v \l'\n(.lu'\h'|0' \" change the G to H for Heirloom Gfoo\dbar\rbaz\dqux foo\dbar\u\ubaz\dqux foo\v'0.5v'bar\v'-1v'baz\dqux foo\v'0.5m'bar\v'-1m'baz\dqux So I thought I would put a couple of images before the real typographers on this list and ask: what are the bugs in the respective implementations? What would an ideal model of output from the above input look like? Regards, Branden [1] https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61437 [2] be0bd23b1b9170ca31dec4e151a65cf2c333fe6b [3] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/src/roff/troff/input.cpp#n2029 [4] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/src/roff/troff/input.cpp#n2159
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
