Hello, NRK wrote on Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 07:10:12AM +0600:
> Recently I've thought about using groff for writing static website. You mean, like https://mandoc.bsd.lv/mdoc/ http://schwarze.bsd.lv/ ? > One problem I've ran into is doing codeblocks. What I'm trying to do is > this: > > .HTML <pre><code> > fun() { > echo "hello" > /dev/null 2>&1; > } > .HTML </code></pre> > > However this doesn't preserve the indendation and newlines are not > properly preserved either. The output I'm trying to achieve is _exactly_ > the following: > > <pre><code> > fun() { > echo "hello" > /dev/null 2>&1; > } > </code></pre> > > It should escape anything that needs escaping but preserve indendation > and newlines properly. $ cat tmp.mdoc .Dd $Mdocdate$ .Dt TEST 1 .Os .Sh NAME .Nm test .Nd descr .Sh DESCRIPTION .Bd -literal fun() { echo "hello" > /dev/null 2>&1; } .Ed $ mandoc -T html tmp.mdoc [...] <div class="Bd Li"> <pre>fun() { echo "hello" > /dev/null 2>&1; }</pre> </div> [...] Admittedly, <div class="Bd Li"> is not *exactly* <code>, but the default CSS presents it in a similar way. The reason mandoc does not use <code> here is that not every literal block necessarily contains code; i admit it's not completely consistent because .Dl and .Ql do emit <code>. Oh, you want to use groff, not mandoc. No, that is not possible, because groff discards all the semantic information (information about which high-level macros were used) before entering the HTML output module, and that information is needed to pick appropriate HTML elements. Groff can do many things, but it is *not* designed to be a website generator. Yours, Ingo
