On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 09:17:01PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:13:07PM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: > > I welcome this change, but groff is used for much more than manpages. > > What happens to pic, tbl, and the other troff-related "little > > languages"? How can you say mdocml is "completely replacing" groff if > > it doesn't support those kinds of things? > > tbl(1) is going to be supported fully at some point in the future. > It is work-in-progress. I am not sure if pic(1) is actually used beyond > the groff documentation, at least I don't remember anything in NetBSD > where I checked. Similiar usage is found for eqn(1). > > > Is the thinking that groff has only been in base to support manpages? > > If so, this project makes sense. But even so, some clarification of the > > intent is needed. > > The use of (g)roff for anything but man pages is practically non-existent. > If you want to use it for typesetting, you can always install it.
Would it support ps/dvi output ?
pgp8taEsiK4zG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
