Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think --man, --html and --nroff and such is a dangerous
>> precedent to set. I'd rather not have them, and instead rely on the
>> "man" command to provide this functionality.
>>
>
> Isn't it a bit late to raise such a concern, since the precedent was set
> in the long list of previous cases that used AST/ksh93 implementations?
>
It might be. I certainly should have raised the issue back then. I'm
still not happy about this.
There's yet another concern, which is that I've found that man <command>
and command --man do not generate the same document. So we know
introduce a problem were documentation delivered on the system can be
inconsistent.
I feel really strongly that this was a bad idea. Strongly enough that
I'm contemplating derailing the case. I need to first go back and see
if this particular issue was already addressed in the previous ARC
history before I do so.
>
>> But part of the cost is a much higher cost to perform localization for these
>>
>
> No matter what you multiply $0 by, it's still $0. (We don't localize man
> pages in Solaris. A subset of man pages used to be translated to Japanese,
> but I believe even that is no longer done.)
>
Really? That comes as a surprise. But we *do* localize commands. So
does putting --man content in the command suddenly mean that in order to
be I18N compliant they have to be localized? That would certainly add
to the cost.
- Garrett
