On 9/30/23, G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been working for a while on paring the groff Texinfo manual's scope [...] > though I think I want to retain > the comprehensive survey of ms, in a reversal from my thoughts in 2021.
What caused the reversal? It's long seemed weird to me to treat ms differently from the other macro packages, which are all documented outside the core groff documentation, and as a non-ms user I've taken to excising the -ms portions of the manual to avoid getting irrelevant-to-me hits in searches. I was mildly looking forward to being able to jettison that script. (: But more significant from a maintenance persective would seem to be the perpetual overhead of keeping two copies of the documentation in sync. On 10/1/23, Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de> wrote: > That's very weird because the quality of groff documentation was > already excellent, and way above the average quality of software > documentation, even before you started working on it. Werner Lemberg > and others did an outstanding job on it. Totally agree. I've appreciated the quality of its documentation since I started using it back in the 1.19.2 days.
