Re: [BUG] "\fC" macro in ox-man.el [9.6.15 (release_9.6.15 @ /usr/share/emacs/29.2/lisp/org/)]

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net>]

"G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> writes:

>> Also note that if a change involving italic happens between two
>> non-whitespace characters, like so:
>>   groff(/7/)
>> 
>> ...an italic correction should be emitted to prevent the two glyphs
>> colliding into each other:
>>   groff(\,\fI7\fR\/)
>> where:
>>   \,  is left italic correction
>>   \/  is right italic correction
>
> So another thing to know here is that these italic correction escape
> sequences are, yet again, GNU troff extensions.  A legacy formatter is
> likely to render them as if the backslash were absent, which is very
> much not what you want in your output.

Hmm. I am wondering why GNU troff is not making these adjustments
automatically when rendering things.

> I reiterate that Ihor's objective of "everything working everywhere" is
> a tall challenge.  My advice is to the org-mode project is to limit its
> compatibility horizon to groff, Heirloom Doctools troff, neatroff, and
> mandoc.  I say that not for self-serving reasons[4] but because other
> implementations are moribund or not aimed at general-purpose use.[5]

I do not oppose limiting scope somewhat.
At the end, our official policy is simply supporting the latest version
of third-party tools we need to cooperate with.
However, yet another policy is to not break Org documents that worked in
the past. That's way I prefer to be over-cautions and support more
things, especially if such support is not too difficult.

The idea with adding multiple legacy escapes seems simple enough to do
it once and forget.

> If org-mode did that, it could ignore the `CW` font whose history I just
> went to the trouble to explore, and the problem with `\,` and `\/`
> escape sequences as well.  With a little more research we might find
> that org-mode could disregard `\fC` as well.

There is no problem with \, and \/ sequences in Org - we do not use
them. Whether we should is another story.

What would be the downside of adding \fCW (in addition to other things)?

> Having now seen org-mode's man(7) output in the flesh from my own input,
> I see plenty of room for easy wins and improvements.  I'll venture those
> in a separate discussion as I make time, or as someone throws me
> questions to answer or problems to solve.

That would indeed be welcome.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode maintainer,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>