I have a general und a more special question. I begin with the general one: If $X/k$ is an
algebraic scheme over a field $k$ and $D$ is a divisor with normal crossings on it, then there is the so-called sheaf of log-differentials $\Omega_{X/k}(\log(D))$ on it. Is there a good reference for the very basic properties of this kind of differetials? In particuar I am interested in behavior under pullback and analogues to the two exact sequences one has for usual differentials.

Now I come to the special question. Let $k=\mathbb F_q$ and $B/k$ a smooth projective curve. Let $F: B\to B$ be the Frobenius morphism. ($F$ is the idendity on the underlying topological space of $B$ and the map ${\cal O}_B(U)\to {\cal O}_B(U)$ induced by $F$ is $x\mapsto x^q$ for every open $U\subset B$.) Let $S=\sum a_P P$ be an effective divisor on $B$. Is it true that $F^* \Omega_{X/k}(\log(S))=\Omega_{X/k}(\log(F^* S))$ (rather then 
$F^* \Omega_{X/k}(\log(S))=\Omega_{X/k}(\log(S))$)? (Here $F^* S=\sum a_P^q P$.)

My interest in these matters arise from an attempt to understand the paper "Purely inseparable points on curves of higher genus" http://www.mathjournals.org/mrl/1997-004-005/1997-004-005-004.pdf
I find the results in this paper very interesting. For example they have been applied towards full Mordell-Lang in positive characteristic, and I have other applications in mind. 

But I am very puzzled. In the proof of the Theorem in this paper, I do not understand why $\Omega_B((F^n)^{-1} S)=\Omega_B(S)$ and why $\deg(P^*\omega)$ should be bounded. Also I do not see a reason why the separable map $g$ occuring later in the proof should be non-constant. 

Final Remark: In this paper the ground field $k$ seems to be an issue that should be discussed a bit. The paper starts with "Let $k$ be a field of characteristic $p>0$". I think the Corollary is false as it stands, at least in the case where $k$ is algebraically closed with $trdeg(k/{\mathbb F}_p)\ge 1$. (In that case, if $K=k(X)$ and $C/K$ is a curve of genus $\ge 2$ which is defined over $k$ will have $|C(k)|=\infty$, 
$|C(K)|=\infty$ and $|C(K^{\frac{1}{p^\infty}})|=\infty$, but of course $C$ needs not be defined over a *finite* field.) Also there seem to be counterexamples to the Theorem itself, if $k$ is a general field of positive characteristic. These counterexamples disappear, if we assume $k$ finitely generated over its finite prime field, and I think the whole paper was meant to adress that case. So at the moment I try to understand everything in the case where $k$ is finitely generated of positive characteristic. But until now I failed even in the easiest case where $k$ is finite ...