Follow-up Comment #3, bug #61915 (project groff):
Nothing clears the mind like posting an embarrassing ramble publicly.
What the report complains of is the handling of the EX/EE macros.
What I used to _test_ presence of the Courier typeface in output was a tbl(1)
table that selected the Courier roman font.
These are not the same thing.
The problem seems to be much simpler, and indeed is present in groff 1.22.4
Ya wanna know what grohtml does when you request a Courier family font?
It opens a "<pre>" tag.
My eyebrow just about arched through the ceiling.
Whatever other complaints we may have about this, it explains why grohtml
honors \f[CR] and .ft CR but not .fam.
Check this out.
$ cat EXPERIMENTS/EX-EE.man
.TH foo 1 2022-09-08 "groff test suite"
.EX
baz
.EE
.nf
.fam C
qux
.fam T
\f[CR]barR
\f[CI]barI
\f[CB]barB
\f[CBI]barBI
.ft CR
gakR
.ft CB
gakB
.ft CI
gakI
.ft CBI
gakBI
$ ./build/test-groff -Thtml -man EXPERIMENTS/EX-EE.man | tail -n 11
<pre>barR
<i>barI
</i><b>barB
</b><i><b>barBI
</b></i>gakR
<b>gakB
</b><i>gakI
</i><i><b>gakBI</b></i></pre>
<hr>
</body>
</html>
So that's why .EX/.EE is not monospaced. I suspect a better approach would be
to produce <div> or <span> tags with style attributes.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61915>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
