bugGNU roff - Bugs: bug #61998, [PATCH] doc/groff.texi: update...

 
 

bug #61998: [PATCH] doc/groff.texi: update Roman numeral info

Submitter:  Dave <barx>
Submitted:  Sat 05 Feb 2022 10:10:31 PM UTC
   
 
Category:  Core Severity:  2 - Minor
Item Group:  Documentation Status:  Confirmed
Privacy:  Public Assigned to:  None
Open/Closed:  Open Planned Release:  None
* Mandatory Fields

Add a New Comment Rich Markup
   

Mon 19 Jun 2023 11:51:59 PM UTC, comment #2: 

Attaching a first draft of a proposed patch.  Feedback welcome.

I put the reference to bug #61999 in a comment since that seems to be the convention with the other savannah references in groff.texi.

(file #54846)

Dave <barx>
Group Member
Tue 15 Mar 2022 10:06:29 AM UTC, comment #1: 

Hi, Dave!

original submission:

[snip]

Well, I'm convinced...

> I think the points worth mentioning in the .af section of the manual are:
>
>  * there is no standard representation of Roman numerals above 3,999;
>  * nonetheless, troff's use of W for 5,000 and Z for 10,000 is an aberration with no historical precedent, and no modern use outside of troff's descendants; and
>  * following Unicode's own recommendation, groff outputs Roman numerals using only plain-ASCII characters, not any Roman numeral characters from Unicode's Number Forms block.
>
> With the above, there is no particular need to single out U+2181 and U+2182.
>
> If others agree with my reasoning, I'll write up some specific text to cover these points.
>
> No parallel change need be made in man/groff.7.man, as this man page gives no detail about how groff renders Roman numerals (nor did CSTR #54 before it).


Agreed.  Please supply a patch at your leisure.

G. Branden Robinson <gbranden>
Group administrator
Sat 05 Feb 2022 10:10:31 PM UTC, original submission:  

In its discussion of register formats, the Texinfo manual states: "currently, the correct glyphs for Roman numerals five thousand ('U+2181') and ten thousand ('U+2182') are not used."

But calling these the correct glyphs may be overstating, while at the same time mentioning only those two glyphs may be understating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Large_numbers points out: "there were various extensions to the system [of Roman numerals] designed to indicate larger [than 3,999] numbers, none of which were ever standardised."  Unicode's U+2181 and U+2182 are only two of the many variations listed in this section of the Wikipedia article.  (For those who distrust Wikipedia, this section cites nine references that can be cross-checked.)

Further, if U+2181 is taken to be the definitively correct Roman 5000, shouldn't U+2160 be considered the correct Roman 1, U+2164 the correct 5, etc.?  That is, the significant point seems to be that groff doesn't use the Roman numeral portion of Unicode's Number Forms block at all, not that it doesn't use two particular (nonstandard) characters therein.

(Even this is a bit of an oversimplification, as the Unicode standard itself says: "For most purposes, it is preferable to compose the Roman numerals from sequences of the appropriate Latin letters."  But while U+2160 to U+217F do have Latin-letter equivalents, U+2180 through U+2188 do not, so their nonuse may be more significant.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerals_in_Unicode#Roman_numerals has a compact chart of all Unicode Roman numerals.)  On the other hand, per above, nothing in the U+2180 - U+2188 range is considered a standard form.  But my feeling is that none of this is relevant to groff users just needing to know what the "i" and "I" register formats do.)

I think the points worth mentioning in the .af section of the manual are:

  • there is no standard representation of Roman numerals above 3,999;
  • nonetheless, troff's use of W for 5,000 and Z for 10,000 is an aberration with no historical precedent, and no modern use outside of troff's descendants; and
  • following Unicode's own recommendation, groff outputs Roman numerals using only plain-ASCII characters, not any Roman numeral characters from Unicode's Number Forms block.


With the above, there is no particular need to single out U+2181 and U+2182.

If others agree with my reasoning, I'll write up some specific text to cover these points.

No parallel change need be made in man/groff.7.man, as this man page gives no detail about how groff renders Roman numerals (nor did CSTR #54 before it).

Dave <barx>
Group Member

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach Files:
   
   
Comment:
   

Attached Files
file #54846:  61998.patch added by barx (1KiB - text/x-diff - proposed patch, take 1)

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -email is unavailable- added by gbranden (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by barx (Submitted the item)
  •  

    There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.

    Only logged-in users can vote.

     

    Follow 3 latest changes.

    Date Changed by Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced by
    2023-06-19 barx Attached File- Added 61998.patch, #54846
        Summarydoc/groff.texi: update Roman numeral info [PATCH] doc/groff.texi: update Roman numeral info
    2022-03-15 gbranden StatusNone Confirmed

    Back to the top

    Powered by Savane 3.13-b921.
    Corresponding source code