Re: [PATCH 3/4] console_codes.4: mention caveats for xterm's ESC ] 50 command

On Wednesday 2026-07-08 17:29, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>>
>> -ESC ] 50 ; \f[I]fn\f[] ST	Set font to \f[I]fn\f[].
>> +ESC ] 50 ; \f[I]fn\f[] ST	T{
>> +Set font to \f[I]fn\f[] (normally disabled; cf. the "allowFontOps" resource)
>
>Please replace "cf." by English words.

But I was just following precedent:

man-pages$ git grep '\be\.g\.'|wc -l
481
$ git grep '\bi\.e\.'|wc -l
516
$ git grep '\bcf\.'|wc -l
10
$ git grep '\bN\.?B\.'|wc -l
0

and the Linux kernel source for completeness:

$ git grep '\be\.g\.'|wc -l
9582
$ git grep '\bi\.e\.'|wc -l
7397
$ git grep '\bN\.?B\.'|wc -l
235
$ git grep '\bcf\.'|wc -l
165


>Also, where is "allowFontOps" documented?

The console_codes.4 manpage section that is being edited talks
extensively about *xterm*, so it felt obvious that, if a term was
unclear, the reader need look no further than into the xterm manpage
to resolve his quest.

In fact, the xterm manpage even declares what constitutes "dynamic"
colors (now that I happen to look for that term which tripped me up
earlier).

Does that sound reasonable?