Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
Hi, Anthony J. Bentley wrote on Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 07:15:07PM -0600: > Eric Oyen writes: >> h. that may be another method of viewing a man page, converting >> it to a text based PDF. that is something to consider. > mandoc supports PDF output as well. > For example, with the following command: > > mandoc -Tpdf < /usr/share/man/man1/ls.1 > /tmp/ls.pdf Useless use of redirection. Make that: mandoc -Tpdf /usr/share/man/man1/ls.1 > /tmp/ls.pdf You don't need to know the full path, man(1) can find that for you: mandoc -Tpdf `man -w ls` > /tmp/ls.pdf If your reader supports standard input, you don't need a temp file: mandoc -Tps `man -w ls` | gv - Of course, that's all a bit backwards. If you really want to read manuals in a graphical reader, telling man(1) to do that by editing man.conf(5) seems a lot more natural: _build .[1-9n] /usr/bin/mandoc -Tps %s | gv - After configuring that, just type man ls and you get a nice PostScript display of the manual in gv(1). Yours, Ingo
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
Eric Oyen writes: > h. that may be another method of viewing a man page, converting it to a > text based PDF. that is something to consider. mandoc supports PDF output as well. For example, with the following command: mandoc -Tpdf < /usr/share/man/man1/ls.1 > /tmp/ls.pdf
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
> that may be another method of viewing a man page You can use: man manpagename | col -b > file to convert a page to a text file, this might be easier for you to read/edit. Brett.
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
well, the PDF appears to be very readable in Safari. This is a pleasant surprise indeed. I have run across some PDF files doing a google search that were nothing but a series of JPG images (containing text) which locked me out of viewing them without an OCR tool. My opinion is that if anyone embeds a graphic in a PDF, that it should be describable and parsed from the text content. there is already a standard in HTML to do just this (and it wouldn't be all that hard to implement in a PDF. h. that may be another method of viewing a man page, converting it to a text based PDF. that is something to consider. -eric On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:14 AM, Dennis Davis wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, ropers wrote: > >> From: ropers >> To: Eric Oyen >> Cc: misc >> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:25:14 >> Subject: Re: man page contents [was: Re: C**.org] > > ... > >> Even with that, I didn't quite manage with OpenBSD (there seems to >> be no pdftex/pdflatex 386 port). Using my Ubuntu box, I converted >> the above tex file to a PDF, which I've taken the liberty to put >> here: http://ompldr.org/vZXcxYg (How are PDF files for you? Do >> your screen readers deem them edible?) > > I certainly have pdftex & pdflatex on my 5.1 i386 boxes. I suspect > they were installed as part of the texlive_base-2011p3.tgz package. > -- > Dennis Davis, BUCS, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK > d.h.da...@bath.ac.uk Phone: +44 1225 386101
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 19:11, Marc Espie wrote: > I'm surprised there aren't more plugins to fix that. > > Especially since the link shows the actual location, encoded ! maybe try this? pretty simple, worksforme (c). http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/107272
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
On 27 July 2012 18:51, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote: > Eric Oyen wrote: >> I tried the copy link option in the context menu for Safari. It should >> have >> given the direct link but I got that instead. sometimes, being blind can >> be a >> real Pain in the backside. > > That's not your fault, that is Google (and everyone else) substituting their > own redirection links so they can track which results you use. I generally > have to open the page and then copy the URL to avoid that. > > The prevalence of the practice often means that sighted or not, you can't be > sure where a URL really leads much of the time. Ah! Yes, of course; thank you; that explains it. This usability-hostile tracking/marketing-oriented nonsense is just one of the ways in which Google increasingly is being slightly (or sometimes not so slightly) Evil™ these days. If you use Firefox, you can use the Google/Yandex search link fix add-on to get rid of this complete mullarkey: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search-link-fix/
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, ropers wrote: > From: ropers > To: Eric Oyen > Cc: misc > Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:25:14 > Subject: Re: man page contents [was: Re: C**.org] ... > Even with that, I didn't quite manage with OpenBSD (there seems to > be no pdftex/pdflatex 386 port). Using my Ubuntu box, I converted > the above tex file to a PDF, which I've taken the liberty to put > here: http://ompldr.org/vZXcxYg (How are PDF files for you? Do > your screen readers deem them edible?) I certainly have pdftex & pdflatex on my 5.1 i386 boxes. I suspect they were installed as part of the texlive_base-2011p3.tgz package. -- Dennis Davis, BUCS, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK d.h.da...@bath.ac.uk Phone: +44 1225 386101
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:51:46PM -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote: > Eric Oyen wrote: > > I tried the copy link option in the context menu for Safari. It > should have > > given the direct link but I got that instead. sometimes, being > blind can be a > > real Pain in the backside. > > That's not your fault, that is Google (and everyone else) > substituting their own redirection links so they can track which > results you use. I generally have to open the page and then copy > the URL to avoid that. > > The prevalence of the practice often means that sighted or not, you > can't be sure where a URL really leads much of the time. > > --Kurt I'm surprised there aren't more plugins to fix that. Especially since the link shows the actual location, encoded !
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
Eric Oyen wrote: > I tried the copy link option in the context menu for Safari. It should have > given the direct link but I got that instead. sometimes, being blind can be a > real Pain in the backside. That's not your fault, that is Google (and everyone else) substituting their own redirection links so they can track which results you use. I generally have to open the page and then copy the URL to avoid that. The prevalence of the practice often means that sighted or not, you can't be sure where a URL really leads much of the time. --Kurt
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
h! that explains a lot. now I know where to go. :) On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 15:27, ropers wrote: >> On 27 July 2012 14:50, Eric Oyen wrote: >>> I need to use something that supports DOC 7? >> >> What is DOC 7? Do you mean the Microsoft Office 97 binary .doc file format? > > mdoc. I think his screen reader doesn't even read man references so > well. > > Eric, where you probably read doc 7, it's actually m d o c left > parenthesis 7 right parenthesis. man page references typically > include the section number as a clue it's a man page.
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
I tried the copy link option in the context menu for Safari. It should have given the direct link but I got that instead. sometimes, being blind can be a real Pain in the backside. I hope that was a text based pdf. the pdf app I use here (Safari) will spit a blank page at me in voiceover if its graphical. thanks for shortening those links for me. also, I corrected my email so that it should send from here in the future. -eric On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:25 AM, ropers wrote: > On 27 July 2012 14:50, Eric Oyen wrote: >> a braille API that works in Linux and all flavors of BSD: > The google links that you're quoted above seem quite unwieldy here, > though maybe you just ended up sending those due to limitations of > your environment and/or (assistive) tools. Stripped from all the > unwieldy google stuff, this particular link becomes: > > http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/13/59/46/TEX/thibault-hinderer-icta-2007.tex > > I found that uncomfortable to read, especially as a pampered sighted > person used to pretty-printed output. I however had problems > converting it to anything I would consider "pretty"; I found that it > depended on this class file: > > http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/13/59/46/TEX/IEEEconf.cls > > Even with that, I didn't quite manage with OpenBSD (there seems to be > no pdftex/pdflatex 386 port). Using my Ubuntu box, I converted the > above tex file to a PDF, which I've taken the liberty to put here: > http://ompldr.org/vZXcxYg (How are PDF files for you? Do your screen > readers deem them edible?) > > regards, > Ian
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 15:27, ropers wrote: > On 27 July 2012 14:50, Eric Oyen wrote: >> I need to use something that supports DOC 7? > > What is DOC 7? Do you mean the Microsoft Office 97 binary .doc file format? mdoc. I think his screen reader doesn't even read man references so well. Eric, where you probably read doc 7, it's actually m d o c left parenthesis 7 right parenthesis. man page references typically include the section number as a clue it's a man page.
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
On 27 July 2012 14:50, Eric Oyen wrote: > a braille API that works in Linux and all flavors of BSD: > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=braille+screenreader+OpenBSD&source=we > b&cd=8&ved=0CKsEEBYwBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhal.inria.fr%2Fdocs%2F00%2F13%2F59%2F > 46%2FTEX%2Fthibault-hinderer-icta-2007.tex&ei=dIYSUP3sDoyq8ASW94HwAg&usg=AFQj > CNExhilt0qbpLvZXKCLVxltZ8-6DqQ The google links that you're quoted above seem quite unwieldy here, though maybe you just ended up sending those due to limitations of your environment and/or (assistive) tools. Stripped from all the unwieldy google stuff, this particular link becomes: http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/13/59/46/TEX/thibault-hinderer-icta-2007.tex I found that uncomfortable to read, especially as a pampered sighted person used to pretty-printed output. I however had problems converting it to anything I would consider "pretty"; I found that it depended on this class file: http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/13/59/46/TEX/IEEEconf.cls Even with that, I didn't quite manage with OpenBSD (there seems to be no pdftex/pdflatex 386 port). Using my Ubuntu box, I converted the above tex file to a PDF, which I've taken the liberty to put here: http://ompldr.org/vZXcxYg (How are PDF files for you? Do your screen readers deem them edible?) regards, Ian
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
something like that. also, you might see a few responses from my alternate email (technomage.hawke@***.***). I need to make sure my send field is set correctly. g. I am not sure what application would be good for editing (or creating) man pages such that I don't need to worry about all of those codes. -eric On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:17 AM, Vadim Zhukov wrote: > Am I right you need ASCII-like output without extra formatting (e.g., terminal escape codes)? Something like: > > "xyz utility does the following: blah-blah. The options are as follows: -h to make you happy. -k to kill your ex-girl's kitten. -v to make sure everyone know what are you doing. See also manual page for cat in section one, manual page for kill in section one and for wall in section one." > > This could be accomplished by new backbend for mandoc, as I can understand. Other easy would be to teach your screen reader to mdoc(7) and man(7) formats. This will do it best as you'll have hyperlinks and other stuff the way you want. > > ... And for now going with MANPAGER and /etc/man.conf will be your best option, I think. > > 27.07.2012 4:33 пользователь "Eric Oyen" написал: > man, > the format of that page is ugly to listen to. lots of back slashes. I noticed > there didn't appear to be any line/returns in there (and that is something my > screen reader doesn't make clear either). > > I will have to find an online version of the man page mentioned below. > > -eric > > On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Weldon Goree wrote: > > > On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 10:54 -0700, Eric Oyen wrote: > >> well, I am wondering what packages I can use to edit man pages. > > > > The pages themselves are marked-up text; just use a text editor. Note > > that OpenBSD doesn't use groff anymore to render them. Look at > > mandoc(1) > > mdoc(7) (the suggested format) > > man(7) (the legacy format; you may run across it in older pages you're > > editing) > > > > As an example, here's mdoc(7) in its text format, via cvsweb: > > > > > http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/man/man7/mdoc.7?rev=1.93;cont > ent-type=text%2Fplain > > > > That's what you would be editing. > > > > Weldon > > > > Weldon
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
it was mentioned in another posting in this thread. I am not sure what uses that specific format. -eric On Jul 27, 2012, at 6:27 AM, ropers wrote: > On 27 July 2012 14:50, Eric Oyen wrote: >> I need to use something that supports DOC 7? > > What is DOC 7? Do you mean the Microsoft Office 97 binary .doc file format?
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
On 27 July 2012 14:50, Eric Oyen wrote: > I need to use something that supports DOC 7? What is DOC 7? Do you mean the Microsoft Office 97 binary .doc file format?
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
I use OpenOffice for editing html pages. this makes editing web pages remarkably easy for me. Believe me, editing raw html is a real pita. so, if I want to properly edit a man page, I need to use something that supports DOC 7? that wood be nice to have on my OS X system. Here's a really funny point. I have been getting told that command line systems are obsolete and that everyone is going to the GUI (be it windows, OS X or some other). yet most of these systems still depend on some command line experience. Frankly, I would rather use a command line based system that is already security hardened (OpenBSD). that would leave out a lot of overhead. someone else mentioned using VI for a command line editor. thats definitely an oldie but still very powerful. I prefer the use of nano myself. its not as powerful but can do what I need it to do with a minimum of fuss. here are some links about blindness and using OpenBSD. this first one is from 2006 from the OpenBSD Journal: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=braille+screenreader+OpenBSD&source=we b&cd=1&ved=0CKIEEBYwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fundeadly.org%2Fcgi%3Faction%3Darticle %26sid%3D20061011142519&ei=dIYSUP3sDoyq8ASW94HwAg&usg=AFQjCNHFOzU5dYwJpVG4bPI ohqKaxdY1bg here is something from this list some time ago. this link indicates the trials and tribulations of making OpenBSD work with a braille display: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=braille+screenreader+OpenBSD&source=we b&cd=6&ved=0CKgEEBYwBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mentby.com%2FGroup%2Fopenbsd-misc %2Fa-live-cddvd.html&ei=dIYSUP3sDoyq8ASW94HwAg&usg=AFQjCNEmQO0H67h3CX888QJjuy h-qnyBjA a braille API that works in Linux and all flavors of BSD: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=braille+screenreader+OpenBSD&source=we b&cd=8&ved=0CKsEEBYwBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhal.inria.fr%2Fdocs%2F00%2F13%2F59%2F 46%2FTEX%2Fthibault-hinderer-icta-2007.tex&ei=dIYSUP3sDoyq8ASW94HwAg&usg=AFQj CNExhilt0qbpLvZXKCLVxltZ8-6DqQ if I remember correctly, bratty is an included package (it may be in the ports tree, but I think its included in the primary install). Since I am still learning braille, it would be nice to be able to connect that display through the appropriate port and be able to install and configure without having to install other packages for a screen reader in the BSD.rd installer.I have recently acquired a BrailleX ELBA 40 cell display for this purpose. I am still a long way from being proficient, but being able to interface with a machine during all aspects of startup and installation would certainly be nice. anyway, reading a man page might be a lot easier with braille. however, since I don't know braille well enough, that is outside the point of the topic (for now). -eric On Jul 26, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 17:27, Eric Oyen wrote: >> man, >> the format of that page is ugly to listen to. lots of back slashes. I noticed >> there didn't appear to be any line/returns in there (and that is >> something my >> screen reader doesn't make clear either). > > It is a markup language. Is editing HTML any easier? If there's man > page content you'd like to see improved, diffs are appreciated but not > strictly necessary. I think someone will be able to patch things for > you if you provide improved text. But don't just say "the X man page > could be better", nobody's going to do anything in response to that.
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
Am I right you need ASCII-like output without extra formatting (e.g., terminal escape codes)? Something like: "xyz utility does the following: blah-blah. The options are as follows: -h to make you happy. -k to kill your ex-girl's kitten. -v to make sure everyone know what are you doing. See also manual page for cat in section one, manual page for kill in section one and for wall in section one." This could be accomplished by new backbend for mandoc, as I can understand. Other easy would be to teach your screen reader to mdoc(7) and man(7) formats. This will do it best as you'll have hyperlinks and other stuff the way you want. ... And for now going with MANPAGER and /etc/man.conf will be your best option, I think. 27.07.2012 4:33 полÑзоваÑÐµÐ»Ñ "Eric Oyen" напиÑал: > man, > the format of that page is ugly to listen to. lots of back slashes. I > noticed > there didn't appear to be any line/returns in there (and that is > something my > screen reader doesn't make clear either). > > I will have to find an online version of the man page mentioned below. > > -eric > > On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Weldon Goree wrote: > > > On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 10:54 -0700, Eric Oyen wrote: > >> well, I am wondering what packages I can use to edit man pages. > > > > The pages themselves are marked-up text; just use a text editor. Note > > that OpenBSD doesn't use groff anymore to render them. Look at > > mandoc(1) > > mdoc(7) (the suggested format) > > man(7) (the legacy format; you may run across it in older pages you're > > editing) > > > > As an example, here's mdoc(7) in its text format, via cvsweb: > > > > > > http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/man/man7/mdoc.7?rev=1.93;cont > ent-type=text%2Fplain > > > > That's what you would be editing. > > > > Weldon > > > > Weldon
Re: man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 17:27, Eric Oyen wrote: > man, > the format of that page is ugly to listen to. lots of back slashes. I noticed > there didn't appear to be any line/returns in there (and that is > something my > screen reader doesn't make clear either). It is a markup language. Is editing HTML any easier? If there's man page content you'd like to see improved, diffs are appreciated but not strictly necessary. I think someone will be able to patch things for you if you provide improved text. But don't just say "the X man page could be better", nobody's going to do anything in response to that.
man page contents [was: Re: C******.org]
man, the format of that page is ugly to listen to. lots of back slashes. I noticed there didn't appear to be any line/returns in there (and that is something my screen reader doesn't make clear either). I will have to find an online version of the man page mentioned below. -eric On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Weldon Goree wrote: > On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 10:54 -0700, Eric Oyen wrote: >> well, I am wondering what packages I can use to edit man pages. > > The pages themselves are marked-up text; just use a text editor. Note > that OpenBSD doesn't use groff anymore to render them. Look at > mandoc(1) > mdoc(7) (the suggested format) > man(7) (the legacy format; you may run across it in older pages you're > editing) > > As an example, here's mdoc(7) in its text format, via cvsweb: > > http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/man/man7/mdoc.7?rev=1.93;cont ent-type=text%2Fplain > > That's what you would be editing. > > Weldon > > Weldon
