On 07/03/14 08:27, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Peter Schaffter <pe...@schaffter.ca>: >> As for groff itself, and good typography, I care about them >> passionately, for reasons it would take a book to explain. We're >> all the same, I think. Together--list subscribers and those >> involved in active development--let's show a certain semantic nut >> he's wrong about the future of the printed page. :) > > That makes a good rallying cry, but... > > ...I actually do care about good typography. I just don't find it very > relevant to the technical-documentation inadequacies I want to address.
That's fine, but ... > Here's a f'rinstance. > > I would dearly love to own a printed edition of Sir Richard Francis > Burton's translation of the Arabian Nights with its major defect - > absence of any paragraphing - fixed. > > And on *that*, by Goddess, I'd value fine typography. And acid-free > archival paper. And a leather binding. The book as craft object and > sensual experience. with this ... > There's still a place for that; it just doesn't happen to be > anywhere near man pages. you continue to convey an impression, real or imagined, that you believe groff's /raison de être/ to be man page production, which, of course, is a world apart from reality -- including the reality of your typographic instance above. -- Regards, Keith.
