bugGNU roff - Bugs: bug #65241, [mm] support bold-italic

 
 

bug #65241: [mm] support bold-italic

Submitter:  None
Submitted:  Fri 02 Feb 2024 11:11:40 PM UTC
   
 
Category:  Macro package mm Severity:  1 - Wish
Item Group:  Feature change Status:  Rejected
Privacy:  Public Assigned to:  gbranden
Open/Closed:  Closed Planned Release:  None
* Mandatory Fields

Add a New Comment Rich Markup
   

Sat 02 Mar 2024 12:12:03 AM UTC, comment #2: 

No feedback on my comment #1, so closing this as rejected.

I'm not passionately opposed; I just don't see a good way to do this within the mm package's existing idioms.

And unlike with documents written using the man page packages, it is not only tolerated but encouraged for an mm document to define its own macros to achieve tasks of interest.

G. Branden Robinson <gbranden>
Group administrator
Sat 03 Feb 2024 12:15:14 AM UTC, comment #1: 

original submission:

> Buried in the novella that is bug #62921 is this observation:
>
> "groff's ms and me have support for bold-italic already (and have
> for decades), and it wouldn't be hard to add it to our mm either"
>
> (This ticket merely notes that Branden has noted the feature gap.  I
> know of no -mm users who have requested this feature, and the
> functionality is already available to -mm users with appropriate base
> roff requests or escapes.)


I'm personally unlikely to tackle this due to its implications for the
mm macro name space.

Consider first that mm has macros for selecting roman, bold, and
italic faces called `R`, `B`, and `I`, respectively.

Next consider that mm also has font alternation macros like man;
these are `BI`, `BR`, `IB`, `IR`, `RB`, and `RI`.

Notice the preƫxisting status of a macro called `BI`.

Finally, consider that even we had a macro for switching to the
bold-italic face (maybe `FBI`), orthogonality would suggest that we'd
need to add several more, to complete the Cartesian product of
alternation with the new `BI` font.

BBI
BIB
BIR
RBI
IBI
BII

I think this would become hard to decipher.

What I would suggest to groff mm users instead is to temporarily remap
fonts in a context where bold-italic is desired.  My suspicion is that
in most practical typesetting contexts, this will arise mainly in
situations where the non-italic face is already bold anyway.  That is
the shape of solutions I have applied in groff man, which doesn't
expose the bold-italic face, but does use it in (sub)section headings
if it infers that the configured heading font (`HF` string) represents a
bold typeface.  It then temporarily remaps `I` to `BI` when setting the
headings.

Regards,
Branden

G. Branden Robinson <gbranden>
Group administrator
Fri 02 Feb 2024 11:11:40 PM UTC, original submission:  

Buried in the novella that is bug #62921 is this observation:

"groff's ms and me have support for bold-italic already (and have for decades), and it wouldn't be hard to add it to our mm either"

(This ticket merely notes that Branden has noted the feature gap.  I know of no -mm users who have requested this feature, and the functionality is already available to -mm users with appropriate base roff requests or escapes.)

Anonymous

 

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

Attach Files:
   
   
Comment:
   

No files currently attached

 

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)
  •  

    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 4 latest changes.

    Date Changed by Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced by
    2024-03-02 gbranden StatusNone Rejected
        Assigned toNone gbranden
        Open/ClosedOpen Closed
    2024-02-03 gbranden Severity3 - Normal 1 - Wish

    Back to the top

    Powered by Savane 3.13-caa5.
    Corresponding source code