tl-install restore period

David Carlisle d.p.carlisle at
Wed Apr 17 23:30:17 CEST 2024

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 at 18:00, Carlos <linguafalsa at> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 02:13:31PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> > The URL is just part of a plain text paragraph so to the extent that a
> > system makes an active link out of it
> > is just down to the heuristics of that system.
> I wouldn't know what that heuristics would be other than what the shell
> which is bash decides upon . At one point as a newborn it was ash and then
> became bash. And it's been like that ever since which is what I'm using now
> and not any other for that for that matter
> As a matter of fact in any Unix system the suffix represented by a dot is
> correlated with the entire filename or filesystems or whatever and every
> one should knwo this by now

Sorry I can not guess what you mean. If I end a sentence with a filename,
the end of sentence
full stop will follow the name, that's just how the language works. The
fact that a dot would be legal in a filename is true but not that relevant.

> and I pressume that any terminal is beyond whatever can/cannot do what the
> shelled layer allows it to; but the second paragraph still applies
> regardless
> >
> > reading your email in gmail I see
> >
> > [image: image.png]
> > and gmail has inferred a link not including the . , and the link works.
> >
> > I assume you are using a system that has inferred a URL ending in the .
> > (that doesn't work)
> >
> > As such I'd say it isn't really a problem that needs to be solved
> although
> > perhaps the text could
> > be modified to give systems inferring links a bit of help such as using
> the
> > <> convention so
> >
> > For more, see the output of install-tl --help, especially th
> >  -repository option.  Online via <>.)
> Yeah right right right. But you're basically saying the same thing over
> there because the period or the dot is not part of it [of that very
> paragraph] anymore really than a space would be after the parentesis.
> But I have to admit what you say makes more sense. But I wonder I do
> wonder about the convention of the dot before the parentheses

It is an english sentence ending in a full stop. There is no intention to
make a link and if
some system infers a link out of plain text, then it may get that wrong, It
happens, but your description of the issue is so strange (including the
title of the thread what dot do you want to "restore" ???)

> and I love Karl, I do, but Karl seemed more concerned with the English
> wording of it and the placement of the dot before when it supposedly ends.
> I mean. What does English have anything to do with it here other than an
> accepted convention by using the dot before what is considered the end of a
> paragraph?

It is a sentence ending in a full stop/period/dot how else would you end a

> But going over it again, think about it for a minute. How are you going to
> blindly decide what is the accepted convention of typographical nature when
> you know perfectly well that it is no longer a text based standalone
> paragraph when it depends entirely on the same say,  heuristics of the
> system as you said.  so no. I wouldn't be persuaded with that clear-cut
> contradiction

I can not parse that paragraph. You seem to assume that the intention is to
make an active
link, why do you assume that? It is just plain text and you used a system
that guessed something that looked like a url should be made in to a link.
It made the wrong guess so
that is a problem of the system making the guess not a problem in the plain
text which
was never intended to have a link.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the tex-live mailing list.