On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Mike Bianchi wrote:
> I don't see why we are stuck. If there were macros that supported a semantic
> representation of the common man page structures they could be added to -man.
>
> I imagine:
> .SYNOPSIS
> .Commandman
> .FlagArgOp
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:54:11AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Ingo Schwarze :
> > The classical man(7) language is a purely presentational language
> > and contains exactly three semantic macros as exceptions: TH, SH, SS.
> > So basically, nothing except titles is semantic in there.
> I'm awar
May I make a plea for the use of or somesuch in HTML
documents? It was one of the first HTML commands I learnt back in 1996
when I started HTML coding. (Some -- my kids -- would say that my HTML
coding remains stuck in 1996, BTW.) Please, some margins in HTML pages
such as
http://www.catb.org/
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> What we can do, though, is look for ways to (a) reduce the inventory of
> low-level troff requests a man-page renderer has to support, and (b)
> further enrich the semantic content so that renderers can do a better
> job without having to ve as complex
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 06/03/14 16:35, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > No, what I want is for all Unix documentation to be properly
> > wenbbed and crosslinked.
>
> Well, that's certainly a vision to which I *can* subscribe, but
> groff is about so much more than Unix document
On 06/03/14 16:35, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> No, what I want is for all Unix documentation to be properly wenbbed
and
> crosslinked.
I find it difficult to understand why groff needs a .hygiene, maybe it's
because I'm a dirty rascal! It seems to be a switch which is designed to
stop naughty man
On 06/03/14 16:35, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> No, what I want is for all Unix documentation to be properly wenbbed and
> crosslinked.
Well, that's certainly a vision to which I *can* subscribe, but groff is
about so much more than Unix documentation; indeed, my own personal use
case has nothing wha
Ingo Schwarze :
> The classical man(7) language is a purely presentational language
> and contains exactly three semantic macros as exceptions: TH, SH, SS.
> So basically, nothing except titles is semantic in there.
You left out the mnost common one: .P.
I'm aware that we're stuck with presentati
Keith Marshall :
> Eric, apparently, espouses a vision of an SGML-centric world. I can
> respect that, even though I do not share it; thankfully, from my POV,
> that vision is unlikely to be realized in my lifetime -- the printed
> page will not die out that soon!
That's not really true. If I we
On 03/06/2014 07:29 AM, Keith Marshall wrote:
I've kept out of this debate, until now, primarily because I've yet to
formulate a defined opinion as to where I stand. However, I would like
to contribute a couple of pennyworth, at this juncture.
SGML technologies certainly have their place,
I've kept out of this debate, until now, primarily because I've yet to
formulate a defined opinion as to where I stand. However, I would like
to contribute a couple of pennyworth, at this juncture.
On 06/03/14 13:21, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
[...mostly snipped...]
>> The logical flow isn't groff =>
Hi Eric,
Eric S. Raymond wrote on Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 12:57:20AM -0500:
> 4. Identify 'semantic' macro packages,
I fully agree with that.
> including man markup
Sorry, but you are completely wrong here.
The classical man(7) language is a purely presentational language
and contains exactly th
Hi Peter,
Peter Schaffter wrote on Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 04:43:27PM -0500:
> if we're to figure out what to do about groff in the future,
> we're going to have to stick to the big picture.
Actually, as long as there is nobody who has the time and interest
and skills to actually do some groff C++
I respect the idea of a tribal society and I'm aware that FOSS needs
it. Being myself a standalone savage creature, I'm aware I am not
able to participate in this structure more than giving some opinion.
Do you really want a modern approach?
Man Pages
OSs should include just plain ASCII Englis
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, hoh...@arcor.de wrote:
> You're kidding! Treating AT&T requests (or the extensions -- as
> said, I don't got it) as being contaminated sanitary facilities? Isn't
> it a rating to call something salubrious or not?
I dunno. LT wasn't averse to "porcelain" and "plumbing" for gi
Peter Schaffter wrote (Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:43:27
-0500):
>
> archaic, of limited use, poor typesetting compared to TeX,
> legendarily difficult to master. None of it is true--except, of
> course, the last bit.
>
> ...
>
> where are these front-ends to come from if we don't attract new
> users w
Peter Schaffter :
> It isn't groff's place to produce presentationally-neutral output, but
> rather to receive presentationally-neutral output and interpret
> it for typesetting. The logical flow isn't groff => XSL-FO, it's
> XSL-FO => groff.
Agreed. This sounds like you and I are coming to the
A reasonably small update, which would demonstrate what can be done,
might be to port GNU fmt(1)’s paragraph algorithm to groff’s nroff.
(It is based on TeX’s, but simplified for character cell terminals.
As such, it should be a perfect fit for nroff and provide a hint of
what could be done for tr
I thought I'd leave Future Redux alone for a while to see where
the cards fell.
List members, apparently, suffer somewhat from ADD because--no real
surprise--it forked into a discussion about manpages. I've no
quibble with that, but if we're to figure out what to do about groff
in the future, we'
19 matches
Mail list logo
