I loved Clarke's history/rant posting, BTW... The other big output issue I know about is the lack of support for UTF-8. I've written some man pages for Trend that I can build fine but when I send the source to the R&D people in Taiwan and Nanjing, they have trouble running them because all their systems are set to UTF-8. At least I think that is the problem -- I'm not adept at macros or character sets.
I still think BSD should stick with groff... It seems silly to be maintaining two sets of what is essentially the same tool, especially one that is increasingly seen as an esoteric tool beloved by codgers who don't appreciate the blessed elegance of WYSIWYG... And yes, I consider myself to be one of those codgers and PROUD OF IT! ;-) meg --- On Tue, 6/1/10, Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: From: Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> Subject: Re: [Groff] Replacing groff with troff? To: kol...@windstream.net Cc: groff@gnu.org Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 9:49 PM >> produces uncertain output > > At this point, I'm convinced that the author has never used groff. He probably means HTML output, and indeed, groff shows a lot of weaknesses for this output device since nobody takes care to make mdoc work well for hypertext. Unfortunately, I'm really swamped with work and have to share my spare time with a lot of other projects and some private life. On the other hand, there is already Eric's `doclifter' stuff which, as far as I know, does a good job. IMHO it would make more sense to work on this tool than to write something new (since Eric apparently has no time or interest currently to work on doclifter). http://catb.org/~esr/doclifter/ Werner
