Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-19 Thread Ingo Schwarze
Hi Nate, Nate Bargmann wrote on Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 02:19:04PM -0500: > * On 2018 19 Apr 13:13 -0500, Ingo Schwarze wrote: >> But the -l option does exactly one thing that is easily described >> in one short sentence that can hardly be misunderstood ("The name >> arguments are interpreted as fil

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-19 Thread James K. Lowden
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:44:06 +1000 John Gardner wrote: > > You might like to believe that eqn, tbl, and pic could be processed > > with grohtml > > I've seen grohtml's complexity and was bewildered. Hence why I > intend to write my own. The procedures for inferring structural or > semantic meta

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-19 Thread Nate Bargmann
* On 2018 19 Apr 13:13 -0500, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > But the -l option does exactly one thing that is easily described > in one short sentence that can hardly be misunderstood ("The name > arguments are interpreted as filenames"). As it has been a few days since I first read mandoc's man(1) page (

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-19 Thread Ingo Schwarze
Hi Nate, Nate Bargmann wrote on Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 08:28:29PM -0500: > I now looked at mandoc's man(1) page again and the '-l' option is > explained as you have used it here. Somehow I missed that the other day > and had tried '-m' and '-M' to no avail. Then I managed to construct a > directo

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-19 Thread Ingo Schwarze
Hi James, James K. Lowden wrote on Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:45:49AM -0400: > The roff language is the only markup language in current use that was [...] > As Hoare said of Algol, it is an improvement over its successors. Heh. That's a good one! > Cross references in mdoc, for example, do not

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-19 Thread Ingo Schwarze
Hi Colin, hi Nate, Colin Watson wrote on Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:06:28AM +0100: > "man ./apropos.1", as Nate pointed out. man-db's heuristic is that if > the page name contains a slash then it's surely a path name instead and > should be treated as such; I think that's a reasonable one. Thank y

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-19 Thread John Gardner
> > *Groff is not the ideal system for generating HTML.* It's easier than you think.You just have to separate presentational semantics from structural and content-related ones. Personally, I feel HTML generators should emit only semantic markup and leave it to structure and external stylesheets

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-19 Thread James K. Lowden
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:19:31 -0500 Nate Bargmann wrote: > I'm still undecided on the Texinfo part, though it may serve as the > portion that ties everything together. I have man pages for utility > programs of the project and will be writing man pages for the C > library. Being able to collate

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-19 Thread Nate Bargmann
* On 2018 19 Apr 02:56 -0500, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > I know we're veering off topic for this list. > > You must be new here. Yes. :-D I do need to spend some time in the archives. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-19 Thread Colin Watson
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 02:28:36AM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Nate Bargmann wrote on Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 06:52:44PM -0500: > > I was disappointed that unlike "man" that I find on Slackware or > > Debian, I had to add an uninstalled man page into the db in order > > for "mandoc" to open it. Per

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-19 Thread Ralph Corderoy
> I know we're veering off topic for this list. You must be new here.