Garrett D'Amore wrote: > 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.
Why ? > 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. Erm... no. As said in my other email the "--man" output is basically a short/terse format and more or less exactly what the "getopts" parser sees (it may even be usefull if main documentation and actual code are out-of-sync (which is currently the case for many commands)). > I feel really strongly that this was a bad idea. IMO it was a nice idea - see my other email where this feature originated from. > Strongly enough that > I'm contemplating derailing the case. And what should we do then ? The only thing we can do is to remove it from the case materials - removing it from the code can only be done globally (e.g. libast) and that really will break existing&&ARC'ed parts. [snip] > > 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. Actually the situation is AFAIK currently that there is not really much funding for this left and the basic system commands are very low priority. That's why I am currently working on getting a rag-tag team set-up to get l10n catalogs for the AST commands (e.g. covering ksh93 itself and all commands which go through the busybox-like "alias" wrapper (including those commands covered by this ARC case)) integrated (first covering Japanese, Chinese, French and later German, Spanish, Russian, Urkainian locales). > 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. I don't understand the connection here: 1. "i18n" is "internationalisation", e.g. the support for non-ASCII characters&co. and this is fully covered by the new commands (and I am _very_ picky about this detail). 2. "l10n" means "localistion" and mainly rotates around error strings/messages/etc. being provided in non-english languages. ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;)
