Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix usages of single backticks to double backticks #591

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

waldyrious
Copy link

@waldyrious waldyrious commented Oct 16, 2022

In RST, text wrapped in a `single backtick` is meant for "interpreted text", and is rendered using <cite> tags. Verbatim/literal text should instead be wrapped in ``double backticks``, which is rendered using <code> tags.

See https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/user/rst/quickref.html#inline-markup

In RST, text wrapped in a `single backtick` is meant for "interpreted text", and is rendered using <cite> tags.
Verbatim/literal text should instead be wrapped in ``double backticks``, which is rendered using <code> tags.

See https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/user/rst/quickref.html#inline-markup
@waldyrious
Copy link
Author

Note: I only checked the docs/tutorial.rst file; it's possible that there are other files in the documentation with the same issue.

@cebtenzzre
Copy link
Collaborator

cebtenzzre commented Oct 16, 2022

Based on the output of

grep -Prn '(^|[^`_])`[^`_][^`]*(?<!_)`([^`_]|$)' --include='*.rst'

this issue is also present in testing.rst, translators.rst, the manpage, and the README.

@waldyrious
Copy link
Author

@cebtenzzre thanks for looking that up! Would you like write access to my fork so you could make the changes to the other files?

@cebtenzzre
Copy link
Collaborator

Looks like I already had access. I pushed fixes for those files, and I also corrected a few references in the manpage (e.g. fdupes(1)) that I think are legitimate use of interpreted text - some of them were using inline literals. How do those changes look to you?

@waldyrious
Copy link
Author

Looks like I already had access.

Oh, right, it didn't occur to me to check that you had collaborator status in this repo. In that case, yeah, it's expected that you would have write access to the PR branch.

I pushed fixes for those files, and I also corrected a few references in the manpage (e.g. fdupes(1)) that I think are legitimate use of interpreted text - some of them were using inline literals. How do those changes look to you?

Looks great! I confess I'm not 100% sure about when the interpreted text markup is supposed to be used, but those command references definitely don't look like things that should be marked up as code/verbatim.

Thanks for taking this on!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants