Re: [Groff] Status of the portability work, and plans for the future

2007-01-07 Thread Eric S. Raymond
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > But now you say "One can safely use almost all requests if their context > > is pure visual nroff markup which does not hurt when omitted." You > > reverse the thrust of your earlier argument, and you do it in a way > > that makes no sense to me! > > It is

Re: [Groff] Status of the portability work, and plans for the future

2007-01-07 Thread Gunnar Ritter
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But now you say "One can safely use almost all requests if their context > is pure visual nroff markup which does not hurt when omitted." You > reverse the thrust of your earlier argument, and you do it in a way > that makes no sense to me! It is

Re: [Groff] Status of the portability work, and plans for the future

2007-01-07 Thread Eric S. Raymond
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Note that .br/.nl, .ti, .ta, and .in are *not* in the portable set. > > These cannot be translated structurally by doclifter, and man-to-HTML > > translators tend to ignore them or give useless results as well.

[Groff] Installing groff 1.19 from CVS breaks man(1)

2007-01-07 Thread Eric S. Raymond
Under Fedora Core 6, installing groff 1.19 from CVS totally breaks man(1). All manual pages display as blank. This appears to be the result of a mismatch between what /etc/man.conf expects and the way groff-1.19 behaves. Just to dispose of the obvious: 1) Yes, I did "configure --prefix=/usr --ma

Re: [Groff] Status of the portability work, and plans for the future

2007-01-07 Thread Gunnar Ritter
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that .br/.nl, .ti, .ta, and .in are *not* in the portable set. > These cannot be translated structurally by doclifter, and man-to-HTML > translators tend to ignore them or give useless results as well. > . . . > I noted previously that \w is *not

[Groff] Status of the portability work, and plans for the future

2007-01-07 Thread Eric S. Raymond
I've been quiet for the last several days because I've been working hard on some of the issues I've brought up on this list. I've included the current draft of the report on portable troff requests below. After it, some discussion of what I have planned when the report is finished. -

[Groff] Re: New PS font definition files

2007-01-07 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> But if AGL 2.0 is sacred More or less, yes :-) > and the correction is an evil (but necessary) hack - it is logical > to change textmap, with additional benefit of double entries in > groff font description (for both u2206 and u0394). OK, let's go this route. May I ask you to provide a patch