okay, yeah, .SH calls .RT calls .BG calls .rn FJ FS
you could drop -ms but you probably don't want that either...
you could use ms2html :)
you could write your own macros :)))
umbraticus
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans
It isn't the Abstract, it's the .SH, which calls .RT, which somehow changes
the FS macro. If you replace .SH with .RT in test.ms nothing changes; if you
delete it altogether the missing footnotes appear.
If you put .pm above and below .SH (or .RT) and run:
; htmlroff -ms -mhtml test.ms >
see test.(html|ms) in http://a.9srv.net/htmlroff/
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T530822947a31ba06-M95035f63cbfc822d50ac389a
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Quoth a...@9srv.net:
> Working on a little one-page report, I noticed htmlroff wasn't
> outputing my footnotes. Looking at the papers in /sys/doc, it
> seems htmlroff produces them properly when they're in the
> abstract, but not in the main body.
>
> Anybody looked at this or know why?
no, but d
Working on a little one-page report, I noticed htmlroff wasn't
outputing my footnotes. Looking at the papers in /sys/doc, it
seems htmlroff produces them properly when they're in the
abstract, but not in the main body.
Anybody looked at this or know why?
--
