"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe. But still the tools should not complain if a troff
> > expert has decided that something is safe.
>
> And how are they going to do that? Mental telepathy? :-)
As I wrote in the text following, by separating a "lint"
(or "-Wall") mode and silent regular use.
> That seems a reasonable compromise -- dead-simple rules with some
> notice that experts can break them if they know what they're doing.
> I'll add such language when I draft the portability guide. Do prod me
> if I let this slip.
Fine, then we agree on this too.
> > > especially
> > > since I think the future belongs to browsers, where you can't get
> > > precise visual control anyway without heroic measures that are a
> > > bad idea for other reasons.
> >
> > This is too simplistic. While it is clearly desirable to
> > have manual pages that can be displayed in browsers, it
> > is a safe bet that many experienced users will continue
> > to view them on a terminal.
>
> And that is what, <1% of our potential userbase?
>50% of those users that actually develop software, write
useful bug reports, maintain the documentation, . . . ?
> Sorry, but speaking
> as one of those "experienced users" (an old Unix hand since 1982), I
> think your vision is too narrow and geeky and parochial here. If the
> price of a decent hypertexted documentation system is as low as
> causing minor inconvenience to a handful of crusty old Unix grognards
> like us, it is long past time to pay it.
I would rather risk to lose 100 non-contributors than one
contributor. But since we are just developing an approach
that satisfies both camps, I do not really understand what
point you are trying to make here?
Gunnar
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
