On Monday, 24 May 2010 at 22:43:37 +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > 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 ?
If "it" refers to groff, it always has supported PostScript. It's trivial to create PS output from man pages at the moment. I don't see dvi output as an interesting goal. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. See http://www.lemis.com/grog/email/signed-mail.php for more details. If your Microsoft MUA reports problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua
pgpbWIGur1saf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
