Re: [Groff] new man-page groff-filenames.7 (filename extensions for roff files)

[Bernd Warken]

> Von: "Ralph Corderoy" <address@hidden>
>
> I'm not sure there's enough here to justify a new man page.

If you do not want a new man-page I can do it as a contrib-project.

> probably end up having to state all the oddities and exceptions.

Some oddities are already documented.

> > These extensions are fixed in all Unix-like operating systems.
>
> I don't think they're are fixed in that many things don't care what
> extension is used.

Man-page filenames need the fixed structure in order to find and read them.

> > Each roff file can be optionally compressed.
>
> I don't think groff handles compressed files? If something like man(1)
> does and decompresses them before groff see them then it isn't a groff
> thing.

groffer handles compressions as well (without .xz so far).
>
> > The traditional "<section>" is a digit from 1 to 8.
>
> Covered by man-pages(7).

The group extensions after the sectiopn number are not documented there,
although they are havily used by man(1).

> > There are 2 styles for writing man pages: "man" and "mdoc". These 2
> > extensions are used in the source code package of groff.
> >
> > <name>.man traditional man-page format
> > <name>.mdoc additional man-page format
> > <name>.mandoc recognizing both man-page formats
>
> That they're used in the source of groff isn't sufficient to document
> them?

They are also used by BSD without groff. Moreover it would be nice to
add the extensions to the Emacs nroff-mode.

Meanwhile groff-filenames.man is ready. I can publish it. I think this
man-page does not do any harm. But a lacking documentation is a weakness.
Imagine what would happen in Linux systems without the FHS.

I could also use this documentation as part of groffer. Reliable filename
extensions would be very nice for grog and groffer.

Bernd Warken