On Wed, Aug 16, 2017, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Peter Schaffter wrote on Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 01:37:17PM -0400: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017, Mikkel wrote: > > >> I can see that nobody has replied. Pleas don't worry about it. It's not > >> anything critical to me it's just sometimes nice to have a little input > >> from others. I think that tbl is the route go for me. But don't worry about > >> giving an answer unless you feel inspired to do so :-). Greetings Mikkel > > > I suspect the reason no one replied is that grohtml hasn't been > > actively developed for a while. It isn't being widely used. > > Besides, it's a hard task allowing moderate success at best. The > roff language is a poor fit for what HTML excels in, namely, > hierarchical representation of information and semantic markup. > The HTML language is a poor fit for what groff excels in, namely, > exact positioning of glyphs and lines on paper.
Well said. > So technically, the best way to transform groff_mom(7) documents > into HTML would be to parse a high-level MOM node tree and convert > that directly to HTML, without going through troff(1) at all, like > mandoc(1) does it for the mdoc(7) language. Precisely. > But i'm not aware that anybody did the work of writing a semantic > MOM parser yet. Not to my knowledge, either. It wouldn't be too much of a challenge. I've done it myself ad hoc with nothing more than sed(1). The mom macros were designed to make semantic parsing easy. -- Peter Schaffter http://www.schaffter.ca
