Eric S. Raymond wrote:
man(1) is not sacred, and I actually find attitudes like yours
kind of insulting, as though you think long-time man users like me are
so utterly lacking in mental flexibility as to be unable to cope with
even a tiny speedbump on the road to better things.
Heh, you
I am about three-quarters of the way through cleaning up the groff
manual pages to be viewer-portable. The new versions will also
be simpler, shorter, and easier to read than the old. I've done
these so far:
chem.man
pdfroff.man
ditroff.man
groff_diff.man
groff_out.man
roff.man
groff.man
grog.m
I understand what tty-char.tmac is doing now, and I am appalled.
No inclusion of this file should *ever* occur visibly in a manual page.
Either this should be invisibly included by andoc-tmac, or expansion
of these glyphs should be done at the device-driver level.
Is *anybody* on this project thi
Gunnar Ritter wrote:
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's a point for the future, really, and goes back to the
philosophical question I opened up at the beginning of this
discussion: is the groff community ready to accept that the future of
on-line documentation belongs to hypert
Why does backslash render as a yen symbol when I do M-x man 7 man?
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
___
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 02:09:52PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Joerg van den Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> well at least I would argue that navigating with `less' through the
>> man output is superior to `lynx' for the same purpose
>
> In what way? That is, what actual capabilities and behavi
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Many groff pages use the www.tmac macros
.URL and .MTO. This opens up a significant can of worms because the
www.tmac code is unsalvageable, full of constructions that cannot be
made viewer-portable. Thus, any page using these will either break
some viewers entirel
Larry Kollar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >(1) Rewrite www.tmac in portable code (no groff extensions). This
> > could work because most third-party viewers do follow .so
> >directives.
>
> If possible, that would be best. As you said, it may not be a realistic
> alternative -- especially if you in
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >(2) Add portable implementations of .URL and .MTO to an-old.tmac
> >
> > That would be OK.
>
> I've written such implementations and added them, not to an-old.tmac
> but to the standard preamble I've developed for groff pages. (This
> is also whe
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I've written such implementations and added them, not to an-old.tmac
> > but to the standard preamble I've developed for groff pages. (This
> > is also where I've defined .SY, .OP, and .YS.) In every case I've
> > looked at so far, this has been sufficient t
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You skipped a step. You have a good point about calling up manual
> pages within an editor, but not all character-cell displays are
> equivalent; it doesn't follow from this that man(1) through xterm has
> any value that lynx(1) through xterm wouldn'
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I've written such implementations and added them, not to an-old.tmac
> > > but to the standard preamble I've developed for groff pages. (This
> > > is also where I've defined .SY, .OP, and .YS.) In every case
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I believe you are incorrect. If these definitions are *in the file*,
> > won't the Solarix/AIX/HP-UX toolchain evaluate them the same way
> > they would evaluate any other local macro?
>
> No, I was quoting ".URL and .MTO" which you cut away, and
> for rathe
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I believe you are incorrect. If these definitions are *in the file*,
> > > won't the Solarix/AIX/HP-UX toolchain evaluate them the same way
> > > they would evaluate any other local macro?
> >
> > No, I was q
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> When you started this discussion, I was under the
> impression that you wanted to do development - to
> correct certain problems you found with some manual
> pages. I have supported that. But now I find that
> it was rather a preparation for this evangelism,
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > I believe you are incorrect. If these definitions are *in the file*,
> > > > won't the Solarix/AIX/HP-UX toolchain evaluate them the same way
> > > > they would evalu
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > I believe you are incorrect. If these definitions are *in the file*,
> > > > > won't the Solarix/AIX/HP-UX too
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > My survey of the viewers out there indicates that long names are portable.
>
> Then you left out Solarix/AIX/HP-UX nroff while doing your
> survey.
Correct; I don't have access to these systems. I will amend my portability
report to so note.
> > But pleas
I have been working hard at cleaning up the groff man pages so that
they use only constructions that are portable according to the third
draft of my report. So far, this has been possible in all cases,
though I anticipate one -- groff_char(7) -- in which it will not be.
The groff project -- and I
Eric S. Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Gunnar Ritter has just informed me that if we want these pages to render
> under AIX, Solaris, and HP/UX troff, we need to stop using long names.
> All macro names would have to drop back to two characters. (We would
>
I lost a sentence there somehow, Shou
On 2007.01.11 12:06 Eric S. Raymond wrote:
The groff project -- and I'm not sure what that means,
other than "Werner Lemburg" -- is going to have to
decide how much portability it wants. There's a sort
of sliding scale of difficulty here.
I have sat and watched this debate, which has sometimes
Robert Thorsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2007.01.11 12:06 Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> >The groff project -- and I'm not sure what that means,
> >other than "Werner Lemburg" -- is going to have to
> >decide how much portability it wants. There's a sort
> >of sliding scale of difficulty here.
>
> I ha
I won't get involved in the personality clashes, but as an "outsider"
of sorts, I'll kick in my bit about cross-platform compatibilities.
I use groff via cygwin on a Windows 98 machine. Cygwin is my
sanity-preservation tool that enables me to do the stuff that Windows
is to dumb to do and I don'
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
The groff project -- and I'm not sure what that means, other than
"Werner Lemburg" -- is going to have to decide how much portability it
wants. There's a sort of sliding scale of difficulty here.
Target 1: doclifter compatibility
Target 2: man2html compatibility
The p
One small thought about man page compatibility... We have a fundamental
problem between Linux and most Unix systems because of the section-naming
differences. I have never figured out a good way around that. My current
job includes responsibility for a handful of man pages about applications
tha
Meg McRoberts wrote:
One small thought about man page compatibility... We have a fundamental
problem between Linux and most Unix systems because of the section-naming
differences. I have never figured out a good way around that. My current
job includes responsibility for a handful of man pag
26 matches
Mail list logo
