> Nevertheless I spent a few weeks on this integration thing and
> produced a longish report on what can be done and how, and gave an
> example. Graphics, far more complex than what you can hope from
> pic, embedded in groff. I haven't got a single answer, apart from
> the usual thing: this file is too big, cut it down. Did not feel
> appreciated.
What exactly are you referring to? I have a
ps-in-groff.tar.gz
bundle in my inbox which you've sent three years ago to the list. Do
you mean this?
> I was wondering what was the cause of this no answer.
What answer did you expect?
> Was my contribution worthless? Was graphics in groff not welcome?
How do you get these impressions? I consider the groff mailing as a
kind of archive which collects useful tips regarding the troff suite.
Your tar bundle is part of that archive.
> The whole thing boils down to a few questions: what is the role of
> groff in the gnu world?
Unfortunately, its importance for GNU documentation is zero.
Officially, the GNU people prefer the texinfo documentation system.
> Why doesn't it get more attention then maintaining?
Because it's just me who works on groff from time to time, noone
else. And I have a lot of other things to do.
> And why to maintain nroff and similar things for those few who still
> can not afford to buy a laser printer, at the expense of the many
> who can?
Well, the most important usage of groff is exactly that, namely to
format man pages!
> And, at the same token, why do we restrict the size of e-mails to
> accommodate the very few who can not get adsl at the expense of the
> vast majority op people who can.
For mailing lists, I consider a mail size limit very useful; I approve
all emails sent to the groff mailing list regardless of their size if
it makes sense.
Werner
