On 22/10/2005, at 4:21 PM, Clarke Echols wrote:
Thanks to all who responded to my question about building a
presentation using groff instead of PowerPoint. The ideas were
very good, and I may still pursue them. As for now, I was looking
for a way to do what I needed to do using groff, going t
> And as the primary whiner on this topic, I'll volunteer to do the
> work to convert the existing texinfo docs to roff.
This is a great offer, but I wonder whether it makes sense to use
the time you are willing to invest in a better way.
. I won't give up on groff.texinfo. This consequently
>> 2. Should it be GNU roff (or runoff), not GNU Troff? Ditroff
>> would probably be more appropriate if showing continuity.
>
>In 25 years, I have never heard anyone in casual conversation
>refer to it as "ditroff". "T-roff" is a universal pronunciation,
>and those who are c
> > . Documentation of GNU projects should be in texinfo format.
>
> Err, there are lots of so-called GNU projects that aren't documented
> in texinfo.
This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult to
write a texinfo file, and there are many benefits to do that.
Werner
On 22-Oct-05 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> > . Documentation of GNU projects should be in texinfo format.
>>
>> Err, there are lots of so-called GNU projects that aren't documented
>> in texinfo.
>
> This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult to
> write a texinfo file, and ther
> > This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult
> > to write a texinfo file, and there are many benefits to do that.
>
> However, I have always regretted, even resented, GNU's transition
> from "man" to "info" for basic reference.
I *fully* agree. It seems that you've got the
On 22-Oct-05 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> > This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult
>> > to write a texinfo file, and there are many benefits to do that.
>>
>> However, I have always regretted, even resented, GNU's transition
>> from "man" to "info" for basic reference.
>
> I
(Ted Harding) wrote:
On 22-Oct-05 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
. Documentation of GNU projects should be in texinfo format.
Err, there are lots of so-called GNU projects that aren't documented
in texinfo.
This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult to
write a texinfo file, an
I won't give up on groff.texinfo. This consequently means that we
need a groff2texinfo converter (or groff2info to get the more
important info files) in case the source files are in groff
format. Personally, I *really* like the indexing features of
`info' which are quite power
I don't -- and won't -- use EMACS: I can't stand it! I do, and
want to, use vim. I like, and want to have, good man pages which
list all the essentials of the behaviour of commands. I rarely
want to get into the labyrinth of a texinfo document (though I'm
pleased it's there I need th
Ted Harding wrote:
This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult to
write a texinfo file, and there are many benefits to do that.
I would like to dissent (partially) from this.
Me too.
However, I have always regretted, even resented, GNU's transition
from "man" to "info
Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
And people who tell me that I should use a graphical front-end for XML
mark-up are equally clueless. It's not faster at all to move my hand
towards the mouse, find the menu, and choose one of 200 DocBook
elements
just to put a word in constant-width font (as it turns
How about using vi/vim non-interactively inside a shell script
(redirect keyboard input to vi/vim from a file), then in the
vi/vim commands file, use the editor's ability to pipe the
buffer through an external command (utility) such as sed or awk?
I used vi and sed that way to overhaul the interna
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Larry Kollar wrote:
> I use structured FrameMaker at work to write documentation, and one of
> the easier ways I've found to get text into it is to paste it into
> Vim then pipe lines through scripts that wrap blocks of text in tags
> (lists, sections, and
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 02:40:10PM +0100, Ted Harding wrote:
> Basically the repertoire of keystrokes, which seem to resemble
> EMACS ones; OK if you remember them, which I don't (apart from
> SPACE and BS). However, to be fair, it does seem that 'info' has
> become more transparent over the last y
On 10/22/05, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Larry Kollar wrote:
> > I use structured FrameMaker at work to write documentation, and one of
> > the easier ways I've found to get text into it is to paste it into
> > Vim then pipe lines through scripts that wrap bl
On 22-Oct-05 Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
[...]>
> That's also a nice example of how painful is writing in XML.
> You use a totally different tool (Vim) to help another tool that's
> supposedly made to help you with XML (FrameMaker).
>
> Also, sections and lists are the least of my issues with XML.
>
Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
>
> There's a good info viewer that is more like lynx than info.
> It's called pinfo, and I use it all the time for reading info pages.
Another possibility is dwww. I have it on a Linux Debian system, I do not know
how it is called on other systems.
With dwww you can v
18 matches
Mail list logo
