From owner-freebsd-doc Sun Feb 2 12:47:44 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9707C37B401 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:47:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50D143F93 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:47:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([12.242.158.67]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with ESMTP id <2003020220474205100htfhhe>; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:47:42 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h12Kku5F064053 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:46:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) Received: (from jojo@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.6/8.12.5/Submit) id h12Kkps2064050; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:46:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: jojo set sender to swear@attbi.com using -f To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: manpage section ordering and mdoc(7) manpage From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: 02 Feb 2003 12:46:51 -0800 Message-ID: <6qel6qif5w.l6q@localhost.localdomain> Lines: 13 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The mdoc(7) manpage seems to claim to be the FreeBSD standard for manpages (or at least part of the standard). Is it? Should it be? Specifically, is the order of sections specified by the manpage the FreeBSD standard, which, if violated, calls for a doc PR? For instance, should the mdoc(7) manpage have its own "FILES" and "DIAGNOSTICS" sections re-ordered to match it's own rules? Or should the manpage be modified to sound less like a standard? If it IS the standard, should it be modified to no longer require the "IMPLEMENTATION NOTES" and "RETURN VALUES" sections, a "standard" which is seldom followed as reflected in the manpage's own example template? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message