[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] Introduction

From: Meg McRoberts
Subject: Re: [Groff] Introduction
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:34:42 -0700 (PDT)

> Talk with Werner, and submit your request via Savannah.

This makes sense.  So how many official developers does groff have?

>    It would be nice to provide some sample scripts, or perhaps
> I think this is an excellent idea.

I realized after I posted this that it sounded like I was saying that
someone else should do this.  I am certainly willing to help out with
some scribal functions -- not competent for much else...

>    I'd also love to have a discussion with you about the relative merits of
>    groff versus XML/docbook.  I confess that I have an emotional attachment
> I've got into a couple discussions with the developers on the
> blackbox list over docbook.  Docbook is relatively new and great
> more broad uses.  runoff was originally a type setting program,
> rather specific to the hardware it was written around, and now
> refocused, if you will (at least with groff), on ghostscript and
> postscript.

Ah yes, I remember runoff and mmx...  We used to write large documents just
by formatting them into ASCII, then when the content was set, we'd send them
to the typesetter who used troff to turn them into proper printed documents.
When they introduced device-independent troff, it was QUITE exciting!

> I've totally oversimplified my description, but perhaps that will
> give you an idea.  Though we often think of troff and UNIX
> manuals, in the old days you printed the manual off, not read it
> locally, hence runoff.

Yup! Big thick books that filled the shelf...

>    I can make for groff are also answered by XML and XML has some other
>    advantages.  Are other people interested in this or shall I take this
>    off-line with David?
> I think you are right in several respects.  roff seems an 'old
> timers' app, that is kept around for the man pages and printed
> material, and otherwise ignored for more widely used word
> processors, web pages, and XML applications that have a wide
> variety of document formats available.

We had a discussion on this list a few months ago, that if anyone had done
a WYSIWYG front-end for groff years ago, it would be more viable for the
masses.  Sigh.  


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]