> A good friend of mine uses plain TeX and LaTeX because he has to use
> Lilypond, [...]
You are aware that Bernd Warken has recently contributed the
`glilypond' perl script to integrate lilypond output into groff? You
might check out groff's git repository to get this – he is certainly
interest
Am Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:44:21 -0400
schrieb Peter Schaffter :
> Here's the second draft of the mission statement, incorporating
> suggestions from Ingo, Eric, Pierre-Jean, and others. It's starting
> to come into focus, although a third pass will probably be necessary
> before we commit to it.
Up
Hi Anton,
> > I read _The TeXbook_ and returned to troff. The input language of
> > troff is superior for mark-up that doesn't clutter the prose
>
> Nobody I know of uses raw tex nowadays. I'd advise against reading
> The TeXbook. For people who just want to get their standard
> technical/scie
>To: groff@gnu.org
>Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:06:29 +
>From: Ralph Corderoy
>
>I read _The TeXbook_ and returned to troff. The input language of troff
>is superior for mark-up that doesn't clutter the prose, e.g. often small
Nobody I know of uses raw tex nowadays.
I'd advise against reading
Hi Steve,
> > * Strange, irregular, archaic-seeming markup design compared to XML
> > or even TeX. Brian Kernignan called it "rebarbative" in *1979*.
>
> Groff is a filter. The input language, the markup, etc., is entirely
> arbitary.
I read _The TeXbook_ and returned to troff. The input langu
Hi,
Werner wrote:
> Please do me a favour: Don't call this `hygienic'. Say `restricted'
> instead.
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/bondage-and-discipline-language.html
`.bnd'? :-)
Cheers, Ralph.
Hello alls,
Deri James 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 .hygiene command is an interesting debate. I don't
exactly know what to think about
Werner LEMBERG :
> Please do me a favour: Don't call this `hygienic'. Say `restricted'
> instead. Today, technical English for software must satisfy some
> constraints, IMHO, and one of them is the avoidance of `colourful'
> terms that might call unwanted associations, especially if there are
> a
>> 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 nois
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
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
can and make
> human judgements throughout the text. You can't rely on
> algorithms, although obviously they can reduce problems
> considerably.
Again I heartily agree! (See also below).
> But even besides this, TeX is not a filter (so it does play well
> with other filters) a
> "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
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
ery noisy. Groff is clean and agile
compared to it.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 06:13:11PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Groff] Mission statement, second draft
> Here are several reasons groff gets written off as "weirdly retrotech":
>
> * The [nt]roff markup d
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Peter Schaffter :
> > If groff is as powerful as TeX while being one tenth the size,
> > why on earth does the author dismiss it out-of-hand as weirdly
> > retrotech?
>
> That's not a mystery to me. If it stays one to you, we have a
> problem; yo
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
> My agenda is just to have good manpages. To me, good means
> portable across systems and media, adhering to a common style, and
> having human-readable source. Good on GNU systems, BSD, HTML,
> PS... "good".
That puts us on the same page. :)
> T
Ingo Schwarze :
> Actually, there are four questions that are somewhat separate
> but also influence each other a bit:
>
> (1) What are we to do with man(7)?
> Eric proposes to carefully evolve it to introduce a small amount
> of semantic markup.
> I propose to provide continuing s
Peter Schaffter :
> Ignorance about groff as a complete typesetting system is
> practically pandemic. After five editions, O'Reilly's _Running
> Linux_ still demonstrates groff usage with a tutorial on writing
> manpages. And recently, I came upon this parenthetical comment at
> the Simon Fraser
Hi Peter,
Peter Schaffter wrote on Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 05:44:21PM -0400:
> Here's the second draft of the mission statement,
It is clearly maturing.
[...]
> The section dealing with manpages had me hemming and hawing for
> days. The original wording wasn't vague; it stated the matter
> clearl
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Pierre-Jean wrote:
> Nonetheless, I think that if the goal is to publish this
> mission statement in the hope that it encourages people to
> join the groff community, a bit more of « writing art » will
> be needed: words that encourage someone to come and work on
> groff.
I a
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:29:50 -0400
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Joachim Walsdorff wrote:
> > it would be fine if you could provide an example text, formatted
> > both with groff and Heirloom troff, to demonstrate us the
> > typographic gain by `paragraph-at-once formatting´ aga
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Joachim Walsdorff wrote:
> > it would be fine if you could provide an example text, formatted
> > both with groff and Heirloom troff, to demonstrate us the
> > typographic gain by `paragraph-at-once formatting´ against `line
> > formatting´.
>
>
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Joachim Walsdorff wrote:
> it would be fine if you could provide an example text, formatted
> both with groff and Heirloom troff, to demonstrate us the
> typographic gain by `paragraph-at-once formatting´ against `line
> formatting´.
http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/doctools
The section dealing with manpages had me hemming and hawing for
days. The original wording wasn't vague; it stated the matter
clearly--the intention to improve the semantic usefulness of
manpage markup. Details of strategy/implementation were omitted
because the issue is a minefield, and part of
Hello folks,
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Here's the second draft of the mission statement, incorporating
> suggestions from Ingo, Eric, Pierre-Jean, and others. It's starting
> to come into focus, although a third pass will probably be necessary
> before we commit to it.
I mostly agree with that
Am 17.03.2014 22:44, schrieb Peter Schaffter:
...
On the subject of implementing Heirloom troff's paragraph-at-once
formatting and associated goodies, I wrote Gunnar about it. Here's
what he had to say:
"Sorry, but I haven't done anything related to those topics for
several years. I've ne
Peter Schaffter :
> Here's the second draft of the mission statement, incorporating
> suggestions from Ingo, Eric, Pierre-Jean, and others. It's starting
> to come into focus, although a third pass will probably be necessary
> before we commit to it.
I'm OK with this version.
--
37 matches
Mail list logo
