On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:02:37PM +0100, Gunnar Ritter wrote:
> "Michael Kerpan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > After joining this board (and being mostly a lurker), I've been clued
> > in to the awesome -mom macro package. I'd like to use it with my
> > extensive collection of OTF fonts, but it seems like groff's font
> > support rather lags behind that of Heirloom troff... Are there any
> > plans to add "modern" font handling and format support a la "htroff"
> > to groff or -mom to "htroff" or am I stuck at the moment...
>
> Most of -mom works with Heirloom troff in groff compatibility
> mode. Just put it into your TROFFMACS directory with om.tmac
> as file name, and use troff -mg -mom | dpost.
>
> Gunnar
>
>
not actually belonging in this thread, but in this way at
least `heirloom troff' related things keep together on the
groff list :-).
I'd like to report a problem (as I see it) with heirloom's
`eqn'.
what I really would think wrong behaviour is seen with
diacritical marks:
something like
.EQ
lpile {
K hat = y
above
K dot = x
}
.EN
shows that the "hat" is sort of right aligned above the K,
not centered as the dot is in the ps output. moreover the
vertical distance above the K seems different for both marks
(probably they both are "top aligned" in this direction?).
the same looks much saner with groff's `eqn' (well one could
argue with respect to the dot, but not w.r.t. the hat).
what's more: the default spacing used by `eqn' (i.e. the
spacing used without introducing explicit white space, e.g.
with the `^' command) is markedly different between groff
and "htroff" eqn. in htroff there seems actually no
additional white space whatever in the above equations,
e.g.. this simply does not look right. I confess not having
thoroughly looked whether this spacing is somewhere
adjustable via registers (maybe it is), but if so, the
default value at least is not a good one.
and unfortenuately both eqn preprocessors are not
interchangable. another question would be: could the output
be made compatible (it should be, if `groff' did not do
groff-specific things in the troff commands emitted by eqn,
right?)
any comments?
joerg
PS: this should be said by and then: thank you werner and
gunnar for keeping troff alive in it's different
incarnations!
