On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 09:59:43PM -0500, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> I'm afraid this will be a long post. Sorry, but I don't see any way
> around it.
>
> It's ironic and instructive that the thread, "Future direction of
> groff", which became a semantic-vs-presentational debate eerily
> similar to a
Hi Peter,
> I'm afraid this will be a long post. Sorry, but I don't see any way
> around it.
Thanks for the interesting and well-considered read. Much food for
thought.
Cheers, Ralph.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 09:59:43PM -0500, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Mike Bianchi summed up the backward compatibility concern best:
> :
> "So no, do not break groff by 'modernizing' it."
Just to be clear, my opinion is that the _vast_ majority of changes from legacy
*roff to groff have been
> The thing I fear is when .glurp arg1 arg2 changes to .glurp arg2
> arg1 , etc. (I cringe when I watch other languages, Ruby comes to
> mind, make this mistake. Code, written to the spec, that used to
> work now doesn't?!)
In case someone steps forward and implements an improved syntax
(whatev
I have more to say.
I'm an immigrant. After burying my family and my country I came alone to
Europe 13 years ago with my skin and money enough to survive two weeks. After
twenty years like a professional cellist I leave the music. Do you still think
that I could be afraid of changes?
Groff alr
Hi Peter,
Peter Schaffter wrote on Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 09:59:43PM -0500:
[... snipped many interesting thoughts, in particular regarding
the question where the problems do *not* lie ...]
> As for xml output, I'm convinced that's a source file, macro level
> issue. The mom macros point the
Peter Schaffter :
> I'm afraid this will be a long post. Sorry, but I don't see any way
> around it.
I found this a very worthwhile read. You raised deep issues that required
thought and development. In this reply I will offer some responses that
I hope are as substantive.
Some weeks ago expla
Ingo Schwarze :
> You see, mom(7) is not the only example of a roff macro set supporting
> the transformation you describe. There is also mdoc(7). The
> metadata part is short (just Dd Dt Os Sh NAME Nm Nd), stylesheet
> information is not usually included but kept in a separate file
> because you
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:06:09AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Now let us imaging adding two primitives to groff:
>
> 1. Declare hygienic. Takes a request or macro name, sets a 'hygienic'
> bit on it.
>
> 2. Enable hygienic node. After this point, all explicit requests without
> their hygieni
Walter Alejandro Iglesias :
> Assuming you have not enough time to do it yourself, what I would do
> in your place is to pay someone to write the html of your site and
> replace DocBook with PHP scripting.
There are about fourteen million reasons that would be a terrible idea.
I'm not going to arg
Being away from home with a mere netbook, I can't really
read Eric's and Peter's insightful remarks in detail. I
need to get back to a printer before doing them justice.
Presentation--at least page size and ease of flipping
pages--matters very much. "Semantics only" is pie in the
sky.
Consider pr
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 01:24:15PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Walter Alejandro Iglesias :
>> Assuming you have not enough time to do it yourself, what I would do
>> in your place is to pay someone to write the html of your site and
>> replace DocBook with PHP scripting.
>
> There are about fou
Hello Peter,
Hello groffers,
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> For example, groff's line-at-a-time approach to
> formatting, if unchanged, will remain an impediment to high quality
> typesetting and ensure groff's demise for anything other than
> writing manpages.
It already is an impediment to high qu
I have, so far, kept silent on future direction for groff, since my own use for
groff is probably very rare, so my opinion should not carry much weight. I
use groff as a typesetting engine called from a front end which produces a
troff file which is then passed to groff to produce output. The tr
I just published the new groff preprocessor `gperl'. It allows to add
Perl code to groff files.
That makes available easy mathematical calculations, the famous Perl
regular expressions, and much more.
The result can be stored in a roff string or register variable. This
result is obtained from t
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:06:09 -0500
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> More precisely, it is not the presence of presentation-level requests
> from the year zero that makes groff-as-it-is unfit to play in the
> semantic-markup world, it is the fact that macro packages presently
> *cannot disable access to
James K. Lowden :
> > man pages don't really need expressive typography.
>
> Man pages are constrained by xterm. A better display system would
> invite tables, graphs, equations, and links.
Yes, but we don't have that. If and when we do, it seems certain at
this point to be founded on some
> I just published the new groff preprocessor `gperl'. It allows to
> add Perl code to groff files.
Nice! And thanks for the contribution.
Werner
Hi all groffers,
in fact I'm a newbie on groff tools and macros. But these tools are the BEST
I've used EVER. I enjoy groff so much, I've developed my
own three side perspective CAD macro to made my needs. And a macro for
electrical and pipe scheme. And there so much ideas in mind to
make more w
19 matches
Mail list logo
