>> Any feel for how many man pages would be affected by the .hygiene
>> command?
>
> Based on doclifter's conversion failure rate, no more than 6%. But
> the unhygienic set can be tuned so the error rate is below that by
> failing to exclude constructs that we decide to consider rare but
> kosher
Deri James :
> Any feel for how many man pages would be affected by the .hygiene
> command?
Based on doclifter's conversion failure rate, no more than 6%. But
the unhygienic set can be tuned so the error rate is below that by
failing to exclude constructs that we decide to consider rare but kos
Groffers:
I'm having trouble coming up with an opening paragraph, so
straight to it.
1. The goal is improving semantic markup in manpages.
2. Ingo and Eric presented proposals for how it might be done. Their
proposals differed only in approach.
3. Together, the proposals dovetail into a
Hi Deri,
sorry, this got a bit long, but i didn't manage to explain why part
of your arguments seem slightly theoretical without showing a few
practical examples found in the wild.
Deri James wrote on Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:10:56PM +:
> On Wed 19 Mar 2014 15:22:42 Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>> T
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 07:01:48PM -, Ted Harding wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Groff] Mission statement, second draft
>
> On 19-Mar-2014 05:11:33 Steve Izma wrote:
> > But even besides this, TeX is not a filter (so it does play well
> > with other filters) and is very noisy. Groff is clean and agile
On Wed 19 Mar 2014 20:29:12 Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > If I have misunderstood Eric's intentions with regard to the purpose of
> > introducing the .hygiene command, then it would be very helpful if he
> > could elucidate further.
>
> The reason to write .hygiene isn't doclifter, it's to allow ot
Deri James :
> This seems to be the difference between Ingo and Eric's approach. Ingo is
> correct in saying we should be trying to win hearts and minds of man page
> authors to use macros which include semantic information, but Eric says
> we must stop any man pages which include presentation m
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 18:13:11 -0400
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> * Strange, irregular, archaic-seeming markup design compared to XML or
> even TeX. Brian Kernignan called it "rebarbative" in *1979*.
Yes, and typeset "D is for Digital" with groff in 2011. Also available
for Kindle.
More telling
On Wed 19 Mar 2014 15:22:42 Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > SO: Supposing that this proposed enterprise goes ahead, WILL WE
> > STILL BE ABLE TO USE GROFF AS WE ALWAYS HAVE DONE?
>
> Yes.
Except if you are a man page author who wants to use all the troff syntax,
in which case you will find that "some
Gnuplot would like an example document showcasing troff+pic, using
gnuplot's gpic terminal to generate the pic, for regression testing.
Does anyone have one handy?
-JimC
--
James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Peter Schaffter wrote:
|On Wed, Mar 19, 2014, Werner Lemberg wrote:
|>> I can't spot any problems with Steffen's 'touch gnu.eps' proposal to
|>> prevent build failure in the absence of the netpbm tools. Werner?
|>
|> Well, this *only* happens if you do a build from the git repository;
|> f
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> How about a README.* for development that lists the typical packages
> needed for common platforms so the resources are just a single `apt-get
> install' away?
It's already in README, but it won't hurt to add it to INSTALL.REPO
for good measure.
--
P
Hi Ted,
Ted Harding wrote on Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 07:01:48PM -:
> A lot of this discussion (which I have tended to keep out of, because
> it is about issues that rarely concern me; and also has not always
> been clear) has been about creating a new, and structured, approach
> to the formattin
Ted Harding :
> QUESTION: It has not become clear to me, from this discussion,
> to what extent this might interfere with core groff. At times,
> Eric Raymond has written as though this would involve a complete
> re-make of groff, with the potential inplication that use of groff
> for other purpose
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014, Werner Lemberg wrote:
> > I can't spot any problems with Steffen's 'touch gnu.eps' proposal to
> > prevent build failure in the absence of the netpbm tools. Werner?
>
> Well, this *only* happens if you do a build from the git repository;
> for this situation I still think th
I generally agree strongly with the views of Steve Izma below.
Some comments in-line; and an important question about the
"structured manpage" issue is at the end.
On 19-Mar-2014 05:11:33 Steve Izma wrote:
> I am jumping in here, for which I apologize, because I have
> not had enough time over the
> "DMW" == Denis M Wilson writes:
DMW> Oh, and the PDF document above was beyond my version of Firefox's
DMW> ability. I downloaded it: gv fails, finding errors and showing all
DMW> the wrong glyphs; evince showed it fine but a page at a time. I
DMW> regret to say that Adobe reader was the on
Hi Peter,
Werner wrote
> Well, this *only* happens if you do a build from the git repository;
> for this situation I still think that you should have all the tools.
It's long been tradition across free software that building a released
tarball required less tools than grabbing the in-development
>> Now the only problem that remains for me is that
>>
>> $ ./configure --without-x --with-doc=examples; make
>>
>> fails with error if `gnu.xpm' cannot be converted because of
>> missing tools. I'm still the opinion that this is not acceptable
>> behaviour and that the `touch gnu.eps' should
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> Now the only problem that remains for me is that
>
> $ ./configure --without-x --with-doc=examples; make
>
> fails with error if `gnu.xpm' cannot be converted because of
> missing tools. I'm still the opinion that this is not acceptable
> behavio
Ingo Schwarze :
> To do that, i first have to try and rehash Eric's plan,
> hoping this will be an adequate summary:
>
> (1) narrowing and simplifying the man markup language, decoupling it
> from groff peculiarities (without going into much detail yet
> which idioms exactly to discoura
Hi Peter,
Peter Schaffter wrote on Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:23:19PM -0400:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
>> Most significantly, the proposed format just doesn't exist...
>> you're stacking a known, stable product against an idea.
> I'm aware. Just to be clear, I'm still workin
22 matches
Mail list logo
