Hey @kivikakk - what do you think of this? With some additional polish, would it be considered for merging?

👋 My responsibilities have shifted far away from linguist and markup this year; @bkeepers and @lildude are probably better people to ask.

I'm so grateful this is being considered. Seriously.

I'm not sure if that's a separate language / sub language / same syntax highlighting or different from a linguist perspective; from a cursory glance, linguist seems to have no existing knowledge of it.

It's the same language. Authors don't typically use .mdoc as an extension because the section number is conventionally used instead. For the same reason, .man doesn't see much use as an extension either.

However, there is enough in-the-wild usage of the .mdoc extension on GitHub, so I'll submit a PR later to have it recognised by Linguist.

As for syntax highlighting, well, you don't have anything to worry about. 😉

.Sh SYNOPSIS
.Nm grep
.Bk -words
.Op Fl A Ar num
.Op Fl C Ns Op Ar num
.Op Fl Fl binary-files Ns = Ns Ar value
.Op Fl Fl color Ns Op = Ns Ar when

Yes, you should update regex to support also .tmac, .roff ideally also .1.in, .2.in, .3.in, ... , .8.in

For .roff and .?.in, yes. For .tmac, no. Those files are supposed to be used like includes, so they'll generate little to no output on their own. Attempting to render .tmac files on GitHub will result in lots of blank pages.

There has been another release of mandoc with further improvements to its HTML output since we started on this, so we'll probably want to build that and revisit the stylesheet if we pick this back up.

with further improvements to its HTML output

Yeah, that'd be my doing. Sorry about that. 😜

Sorry about that. 😜

@Alhadis No apologies necessary, especially if the changes mean we can toss the XSLT in the trash ;)

For .roff and .?.in, yes. For .tmac, no. Those files are supposed to be used like includes, so they'll generate little to no output on their own. Attempting to render .tmac files on GitHub will result in lots of
blank pages.

Yea, that is truth, *.tmac is just file with troff macros, so it really should not be rendered as real manpage. So for manpages, at least .man, .man.in, .[0-9] and .[0-9].in are needed.

Support for the .mdoc extension landed in github/linguist@55bf480.

Changes will become live on GitHub after the next release of Linguist.

Question: How will eqn(1) markup be handled in rendered output? Its use in manpages is uncommon, but mandoc(1) still supports it using MathML.

However, MathML support is far from universal, with only Firefox having full support. A client-side library like MathJax would therefore be needed to guarantee consistent handling across browsers. This might complicate things unless MathJax is already in use as a production dependency.

In any case, eqn(1) needs consideration, because documents marked-up with equations will almost certainly lose meaning if the eqn blocks are stripped or imprecisely rendered.

Example:

Input:

.Dt Document title
.Dd 2018-08-20
.Ss SYNOPSIS
.EQ
Z ~=~~ U over V
 ~~=~~ {a + b X} over {c + d X}
.EN

Output:

<math class="eqn">
	<mrow><mi>Z</mi><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mi>U</mi><mi>V</mi></mfrac><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mrow><mi>a</mi><mo>+</mo><mi>b</mi><mi>X</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>c</mi><mo>+</mo><mi>d</mi><mi>X</mi></mrow></mfrac></mrow>
</math>

Question: How will eqn(1) markup be handled in rendered output?

It is really uncommon and I think this can be postponed after basic support will be there.

That works for me then. 👍

@Alhadis: and file extensions .man.in, .mdoc.in and .1.in, .2.in, .3.in, .4.in, .5.in, .6.in, .7.in, .8.in, .9.in would be added too?

I'm not sure. I think so, but care would be needed to expand .so requests gracefully so inaccessible or non-existent resources don't mangle output.

I may be a little apprehensive because of the widespread misclassification of files using .[1-9] or .in file extensions, and I don't really have much familiarity with GNU Autotools. All things considered, I'm probably not the best person to ask concerning the suitability of rendering .in documents.

@RalphCorderoy Could you add your thoughts here?

@Alhadis: about .in files, basically you should strip .in suffix and then look at extension. So something.xyz.in has extension .xyz. In GNU autotools, files with .in means as input for processing. Autotools take something.xyz.in file and generates from it something.xyz by replacing autotools text macros (expand @something@ in it). Most common are file.h.in (as C header file) or man.1.in (as manpage). But any text file can be used.

Ah, alright. :) That's what I thought, but I didn't want to assert an assumption.

Cheers!

Hi! Any progress on this pull request? It is still marked as WIP and lot of people would love to see support for rendering manpages.

Seconding this request for a status report. I'd love to start documenting projects with a real formatting language.

Forever sick of markdown.

Hi, I plan to start working again on this on Monday.

Here's my plan for this:

• Alter the regex to be something like /[1-9][a-z]*(\.in)?|man|mdoc/ - need to check and see what exactly I'm matching against here, is it just going to give me in for a foo.1.in?
• Return this particular "useless use of cat award"
• Switch to using fragment output, see if that's fine to pass onwards without further XSLT fiddling
• Need to find out if it's ok to just pass through/serve MathJAX unaltered for now or investigate how we do equation rendering elsewhere

Please ping me if any of those sound off

All parts of your plan sound reasonable, let us know how it goes and whether you encounter any issues with mandoc. Two minor remarks:

something like /[1-9][a-z]*(\.in)?|man|mdoc/ - need to check and see what exactly I'm matching against here, is it just going to give me in for a foo.1.in?

You probably also want files with the extension "*.n", which is customary for Tcl/Tk library manuals. For example, i have these manual pages on my system:

/usr/local/lib/tcl/tcl8.6/man/mann/Tcl.n
/usr/local/lib/tcl/tcl8.6/man/mann/append.n
/usr/local/lib/tcl/tcl8.6/man/mann/argc.n
...

Need to find out if it's ok to just pass through/serve MathJAX unaltered for now or investigate how we do equation rendering elsewhere

Not sure why you mention MathJAX; mandoc does not emit MathJax (or any JavaScript whatsoever). Mandoc merely converts eqn(7) input embedded in manual pages into MathML as defined by HTML5.

@ischwarze I meant MathML; what I was wondering is if we were already using MathJAX elsewhere on GitHub to solve the cross-browser rendering problems, but it appears that we are unable to do so because it ends up causing problems with some other parts of our frontend.

Right now I am considering the following options, with regard to equation support:

• Pass the MathML through unaltered, and if the user's browser doesn't render it, it doesn't render it
• Strip the MathML from the output and/or replace it with something like "(equation not rendered)"
• It seems like it may be possible to convert the MathML to inline SVG, but that's going to necessitate throwing a whole lot of tooling at it

I think you should really ignore MathML problem right now. Mathematic formulas are not so common in Linux manpages... So the easiest thing is to pass MathML output as is.

Agreed, just pass it through unaltered. It's Chrome's bloody fault for not bothering to support a published standard.

We can worry about fine-tuning later.

Hello, is there any progress on this feature request?

I also wouldn't mind an update. @jordemort, what's the status on this PR? :)

@jordemort Is there anything I can do to help? I'm willing to take on any volume of work needed to have man-pages rendered on GitHub.

If this PR's blocked on something I can't fix (such as an internal discussion between GitHub staff), please let me know so I can at least stop clogging this thread with offers to help.

@Alhadis I do not think there would be any internal barrier to getting this merged, if we could get it cleaned up. I definitely won't have time to work on it myself any time soon, though.

@jordemort: what is needed to be done? @Alhadis already wrote that is willing to finish it. Can we move forward?

@jordemort Be on the lookout for a @mention from me in the next few days. I'll fork from your branch, so you'll need to merge my changes manually (I could submit a separate PR, if you'd prefer—whichever gets this landed sooner).

Okay, done. That was;

• 25 minutes of coding,
• 5 hours struggling to wrap my head around XSLT,
• Another 4 hours debugging inexplicable test failures,
• And me finally cracking the shits and nuking the test I couldn't fix, because everything else is working fine

Your move, @jordemort.

@Alhadis: Some of tests on Travis are failing...

Some of tests on Travis are failing...

I wasn't even aware that I could trigger a build re-run by pushing a fork of a PR branch…

Anyway, two of those failures are caused by Ruby 2.1.* and Ruby 2.2.* having no support for <<~squiggly heredocs (which I've removed, even though I doubt very much that GitHub are still supporting two EOL versions of Ruby). The other two failures, though… eh, I've got no explanation. The tests are passing perfectly fine when run locally. I can only assume it's environment-related (possibly something to do with an old version of mandoc(1) being used?).

I'll keep testing, though @jordemort may need to throw me a bone here.

@Alhadis I triggered them, by pushing your commits from your branch to this one - you can also trigger them yourself by opening a new PR and pushing commits to it.

I will need to get back to you re: support for older Ruby but it might be fine to drop it? We certainly don't run anything that old internally.

It looks to me like the test failures are a side effect of the HTML output of mandoc varying by version. We might need an additional safeguard here to ensure that the correct version of mandoc is available, and some additional gymnastics to ensure that that's the version installed in the test environment.

It looks to me like the test failures are a side effect of the HTML output of mandoc varying by version. We might need an additional safeguard here to ensure that the correct version of mandoc is available, and some additional gymnastics to ensure that that's the version installed in the test environment.

We have two major problems here:

2. HTML output will inevitably vary between versions. Even if the variance is as trivial as changes to whitespace, it's not really something we can (or should) try to enforce.

3. mandoc provides no means of interrogating its release version:

   $ mandoc --version
   mandoc: illegal option -- -
   mandoc: illegal option -- v
   mandoc: illegal option -- e
   mandoc: illegal option -- r
   usage: mandoc [-ac] [-I os=name] [-K encoding] [-mdoc | -man] [-O options]
   	      [-T output] [-W level] [file ...]
   $ mandoc -v
   mandoc: illegal option -- v
   usage: mandoc [-ac] [-I os=name] [-K encoding] [-mdoc | -man] [-O options]
   	      [-T output] [-W level] [file ...]

   From @ischwarze's earlier feedback, it seems unlikely that mandoc will introduce a --version switch, or something similar.

IMHO, a more reliable test would involve fuzzy-matching portions of a rendered HTML document.

@Alhadis Yes, the tests could be fuzzier, or the XSLT could be more complex, or maybe we could just give up on the XSLT altogether and say "I'll accept whatever mandoc outputs as the body"

1. HTML output will inevitably vary between versions.

True. The exact format of HTML output is expected to become more stable over time, but some changes will likely happen for quite some time: the HTML output is not yet perfect.

I'm a bit confused what you are trying to test here. It can't really be whether mandoc produces the expected HTML output, right? Because you are not testing mandoc here as far as i understand. Besides, whether mandoc produces the expected HTML output is already tested extensively in the mandoc regression suite. That seems the proper place to do such tests. Doing the tests there also implies that they are always done for the right version of mandoc, without doing any version detection, simply because the mandoc regression suite is part of the mandoc repository itself.

2. `mandoc` provides no means of interrogating its release version:

In the test suite for some other program, are you considering to provide different test suites (or at least varying tests) depending on the mandoc version? That would seem surprising to me. You want to test the other program, not mandoc, or what am i missing?

IMHO, a more reliable test would involve fuzzy-matching portions of a rendered HTML document.

That sounds reasonable. The short .Dx example you provided is less likely to change than a larger chunk of output. Alternatively, just looking for the string

<div class="manual-text">

might be even more robust. That is very likely to be contained in the HTML output of any version of mandoc for any input document, and it is not likely to change in the future.

@jordemort i've updated the tests to use Nokogiri's CSS selectors to assert the existence of <h1> and <table> elements in rendered output. I'm also puzzled as to why we're using XMLStarlet instead of Nokogiri (which would make more sense, since it's a Ruby library).

I'm a bit confused what you are trying to test here.

We're testing this library's ability to shell out to mandoc(1) and filter its -Thtml output for optimal display on GitHub.

@Alhadis I think at this point you're going to be better off opening your own PR, so you don't have to wait for me to push things to the branch to get the tests to run.

Re: "why is this this way / why is this not finished" - this was a project from an internal hack week in 2018. I was not familiar with this codebase at the time; indeed, I barely knew Ruby. I do not have any ownership or authority over this repository, I do not have any time on my schedule allocated to work on it any further, and as far as I know it hasn't made it to anyone else's roadmap either. I would have really liked to see manpage support added to this gem, but I am not the person that is going to be able to make it happen.

Hi @Alhadis, If you do open your own PR then please state its URL here. Thanks.

Already on it. You'll all be @cc'd in the new PR. 👍