[bug #64440] [docs] minor corrections and updates

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #64440 (project groff):

[comment #2 comment #2:]
> I think I already tackled this one, or tried to.
...
> Does this clarify the point?  Tossing to you for feedback.

Nothing in the "Manipulating Filling and Adjustment" section says that the
pending output line's baseline, once output, must all fall at the same
vertical position--and, indeed, it shouldn't say so, because this is not the
case: the \v escape can move part of the line's baseline (as little as one
glyph, in the case of a common rendering for the string "TEX").

The potential question in the reader's mind might be whether the "sp" request,
when invoked with the no-break control character, acts as \v does and moves
only the pending output line's text baseline from the point where the request
appears--that is, results in a staggered baseline.

Since the "Manipulating Filling and Adjustment" section cannot address this
question as a general matter (because, in general, a baseline _can_ be
staggered), one must turn to the specific "sp" documentation in the
"Manipulating Spacing" section to answer it.

It is the sentence in this section that I called out as potentially ambiguous
on this point.  As my initial comment said, the sentence is correct as
written, but I feel it can also be read to mean that an 'sp invocation results
in a staggered baseline the way \v does.

Do you think that's also a valid potential reading of that sentence?  Do you
think inserting the word "entire" before "pending" dispels that ambiguity?


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64440>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/