svn commit: r362191 - head/sbin/md5

[Rodney W. Grimes]

> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:34 AM Mateusz Piotrowski <0mp at freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 6/15/20 2:33 PM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > > [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> > >> Author: fernape (ports committer)
> > >> Date: Mon Jun 15 10:08:02 2020
> > >> New Revision: 362191
> > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/362191
> > >>
> > >> Log:
> > >>   md5(1): fix style in man page
> > >
> > > Mandoc is fine to ignore this, but it is wrong to call it useless.
> > >
> > > I really wish that this stop.  .Tn might be useless to mandoc,
> > > but it is a very usable thing if your formatting to something
> > > other than txt, as in a ps or pdf.
> >
> > In that case I would consider patching our in-tree mandoc to not warn
> > about Tn. Or request support for Tn or a well-defined replacement upstream.
> >
> > I can see the benefit of keeping Tn around, as it /might/ potentially
> > create nice formatting for HTML. On the other hand, I don't like the
> > idea of not following the linter.
> >
> 
> I thought that Tn thing was the general consensus thing and added to the
> linter because of that. The man page explains why it's problematic:
> 
>      Tn word ...
>           Supported only for compatibility, do not use this in new manuals.
>           Even though the macro name ("tradename") suggests a semantic
>           function, historic usage is inconsistent, mostly using it as a
>           presentation-level macro to request a small caps font.

I believe that comes about because of confusion over trade name vs
trademark.  They are not defined as the same thing.

> It was useful for the Unix trademark, but was tailor towards AT&T's
> preferred dressing for the Unix trademark, not for trademarks in general.

Crossing tradename with trademark?

> In this case, there were several instances of abuse:
> 
> -.Tn RSA .
> +key under a public-key cryptosystem such as RSA.

trade name: noun
  1. the name used by a manufacturer, merchant, service company,
     farming business, etc., to identify itself individually
     as a business.
  2. a word or phrase used in a trade to designate a business,
     service, or a particular class of goods, but that is not
     technically a trademark, either because it is not
     susceptible of exclusive appropriation as a trademark or
     because it is not affixed to goods sold in the market.
  3. the name by which an article or substance is known to the trade.

I would say RSA defanitly meets 3, and probably 2.

> 
> Not a trademark in this context. RSA is a trademark for the RSA corporation
> and it uses it in various other contexts.
> 
> -The
> -.Tn MD5
> -and
> -.Tn SHA-1
> -algorithms have been proven to be vulnerable to practical collision
> -attacks and should not be relied upon to produce unique outputs,
> +The MD5 and SHA-1 algorithms have been proven to be vulnerable to practical
> +collision attacks and should not be relied upon to produce unique outputs,
> 
> MD5 and SHA-1 are not trade names in this context. The rest seem similar,
> though I've not gone to the trouble to look them all up.

I would disagree under the definition of trade name above,
you seem to be applying the definition of trade mark.

> 
> All in all, while I have some sympathy to Rod's view that we're losing
> semantic information by these changes in general, this particular one
> actually fixes the abuse talked about in the mdoc manual, IMHO.

Only if the macro is rigidly defined as "trademark" and it
is not.

> Warner
-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org