Deri James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 3. The 'man' page author intends to present technical information in the way
> he thinks it will be easiest for the audience to absorb, i.e. he will be more
> interested in presentation and content than structure.
He'll be interested in content, yes. But I don'
On Monday 01 January 2007 19:52, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Here is a slightly expanded version of a diagram I posted back towards
> the beginning of the discussion:
>
[...]
>
> The box in the middle is intended to indicate the use of DocBook as a
> common interchange format.
I may have, on occasion
Larry Kollar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reading the discussion, I feel like Bernd's objection is based on a
> perception that ESR wants to *replace* groff -man with DocBook, where
> I believe he wants to use DocBook as an *interchange* format for all
> system documentation.
But this is no
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Statements like yours are usually coming from ideological followers
> > of the GNU project, not from GNU developers. I am under the
> > impression that all you want is to defend your macros just because
> > they are yours, and resort to non-technical
Larry Kollar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Reading the discussion, I feel like Bernd's objection is based on a
> perception that ESR wants to *replace* groff -man with DocBook, where
> I believe he wants to use DocBook as an *interchange* format for all
> system documentation.
That is correct. It
When the slime is replaced back to reason more will come.
Interesting sentiment. Very German.
Hey, he is not the only German participating here.
Which I think might have something to do with the heat level. I've
been on this list for a while, and I know Bernd isn't ignorant. He
may have
> Statements like yours are usually coming from ideological followers
> of the GNU project, not from GNU developers. I am under the
> impression that all you want is to defend your macros just because
> they are yours, and resort to non-technical bullshit since you are
> lacking technical argument
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Interesting sentiment. Very German.
>
> Hey, he is not the only German participating here.
Sorry :-).
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
___
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > There has never been any IETF RFP, nor ANSI/ISO/W3C committee work.
> > Thus, there is no de jure standard here, only a de facto one.
>
> It is the GNU standard, so it is the standard in the world of free software.
> We spit on all commerci
> > Interesting sentiment. Very German.
>
> Hey, he is not the only German participating here.
Hehe. I'm Austrian :-)
Werner
___
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > When the slime is replaced back to reason more will come.
>
> Interesting sentiment. Very German.
Hey, he is not the only German participating here.
Gunnar
___
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
> You have to solve your own problems instead of killing other good
> projects.
>
> [...]
>
> When the slime is replaced back to reason more will come.
Bernd,
please soften your tone. It's not helpful.
Eric has valid concerns. Remember that you do funny hops in groffer
to cater for a bunch o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You have to solve your own problems instead of killing other good projects.
Right, which is why the groff pages need to be fixed so as not to kill
XMan, TkMan, Rosetta, and all other third-party viewers. My doclifter
is not even really the issue here, it's
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> There has never been any IETF RFP, nor ANSI/ISO/W3C committee work.
> Thus, there is no de jure standard here, only a de facto one.
It is the GNU standard, so it is the standard in the world of free software.
We spit on all commercial standards. We use them to extend t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> That's not the fault of groff, but you are not willing to accept the
> standard.
There has never been any IETF RFP, nor ANSI/ISO/W3C committee work.
Thus, there is no de jure standard here, only a de facto one.
In any case, I already said I would be willi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's not a bug, it's part of the standard. `grohtml' is able to transform
> all
> man pages indluding your enemies to a beautiful html output. So this
> should also be possible for XML.
>
> How about integrating `doclifter' into `groff' as generater for `docbook'
> o
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Bernd Warken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > `doclifter' should be fixed to handle this correctly. I cannot
> > detect any necessity for a "safe" list. I will not fall back to the
> > old scheme of 2 letter variable names.
>
> I opened this discussion because, for just eigh
Bernd Warken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> `doclifter' should be fixed to handle this correctly. I cannot
> detect any necessity for a "safe" list. I will not fall back to the
> old scheme of 2 letter variable names.
I opened this discussion because, for just eight pages out of over 13,000,
adding the
In /contrib/groffer/perl, I called
doclifter groffer.man
and got the following error message:
"groffer.man", line 32: error: attempt to alias undefined name
groffer:Shell_cmd_base.prompt_font\"
"groffer.man", line 33: error: attempt to alias undefined name
groffer:Shell_cmd.prompt_text\"
"grof
19 matches
Mail list logo
