Peter Schaffter :
> As for groff itself, and good typography, I care about them
> passionately, for reasons it would take a book to explain. We're
> all the same, I think. Together--list subscribers and those
> involved in active development--let's show a certain semantic nut
> he's wrong about t
On 07/03/14 08:27, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Peter Schaffter :
>> As for groff itself, and good typography, I care about them
>> passionately, for reasons it would take a book to explain. We're
>> all the same, I think. Together--list subscribers and those
>> involved in active development--let's
Hi Ingo,
> > ancillary to backend improvement, there's a pressing need for groff
> > advocacy.
>
> Sure, that may also help to attract not just users, but developers,
> too. However, I don't think that advocacy needs to be limited to
> advertising groff for writing novels (and mathematical treat
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:54:11AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Ingo Schwarze :
> > The classical man(7) language is a purely presentational language
> > and contains exactly three semantic macros as exceptions: TH, SH, SS.
> > So basically, nothing except titles is semantic in there.
> I'm awar
Keith Marshall :
> you continue to convey an impression, real or imagined, that you believe
> groff's /raison de être/ to be man page production, which, of course, is
> a world apart from reality -- including the reality of your typographic
> instance above.
You're imagining things. Calm down - n
On Thu 06 Mar 2014 17:24:09 Peter Schaffter wrote:
> > Keith, is there any chance I could add something along these lines
> > to pdfroff if the -T pdf switch is passed to pdfroff?
>
> I'm all for this. pdfmom performs splendidly. Nary a hitch with
> forward references. Non-mom users could reall
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Peter Schaffter :
> > As for groff itself, and good typography, I care about them
> > passionately, for reasons it would take a book to explain. We're
> > all the same, I think. Together--list subscribers and those
> > involved in active development-
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Mike Bianchi wrote:
> I don't see why we are stuck. If there were macros that supported a semantic
> representation of the common man page structures they could be added to -man.
>
> I imagine:
> .SYNOPSIS
> .Commandman
> .FlagArgOp
Anthony J. Bentley :
> Funny, that looks almost exactly like what you posted. Since -mdoc
> already exists, is shipped in man(1) with a great many systems
> (certainly all the ones I've ever used), and already has thousands of
> manpages written in it, why extend -man in a backwards incompatible
>
On 07/03/14 17:35, Deri James wrote:
> On Thu 06 Mar 2014 17:24:09 Peter Schaffter wrote:
>>> Keith, is there any chance I could add something along these lines
>>> to pdfroff if the -T pdf switch is passed to pdfroff?
>>
>> I'm all for this. pdfmom performs splendidly. Nary a hitch with
>> forwa
The result is pure hell for anyone trying to interpret the mess with
anything but groff itself. I believe I am the only person who has
even tried this seriously.
I managed to handle almost all of it, because I am exceptionally good
at the kind of hacking required for the job. But not in fact all
Hi Eric,
Eric S. Raymond wrote on Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 02:14:24PM -0500:
> I've written an mdoc interpreter. It's in doclifter. And I'm here
> to tell you why mdoc is not the solution you're looking for.
Well, i already solved the problem with it, so you are somewhat
late in warning me... :-D
Kristaps Dzonsons :
> >The effort required to get this far with mdoc was extreme even for
> >me. Thus I consider that effort very unlikely to be successfully
> >replicated - I doubt anyone else will have the stamina required.
>
> Er... http://mdocml.bsd.lv?
An implementation by the *designer of m
Ingo Schwarze :
> Yes, .Xo/.Xc is slightly ugly, but you don't have to use it if
> you don't like it.
You can't tell me it's optional. It's in the corpus and doclifter has to
cope with it somehow.
> > The result is pure hell for anyone trying to interpret the mess with
> > anything but groff it
Hi Eric,
Eric S. Raymond wrote on Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:03:49PM -0500:
> Kristaps Dzonsons :
>> esr wrote:
>>> The effort required to get this far with mdoc was extreme even for
>>> me. Thus I consider that effort very unlikely to be successfully
>>> replicated - I doubt anyone else will have t
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Keith Marshall :
> > you continue to convey an impression, real or imagined, that you believe
> > groff's /raison de être/ to be man page production, which, of course, is
> > a world apart from reality -- including the reality of your typographic
> > i
16 matches
Mail list logo
