[Top][All Lists]

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

[Groff] new round of html bugs

From: Werner LEMBERG
Subject: [Groff] new round of html bugs
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:35:00 +0200 (CEST)

After a few months I'm again examining the pic.html as produced with
`make' in the `doc' subdirectory.  I found a couple of bugs (some of
them I've already reported, though).

 1. The first image (figure 3-1) is still cropped too much at the
    bottom.  It's even worse for figure 3-5.

 2. The verbatim output directly below the image (showing a .PS
    ... .PE environment) is incorrect.  All backslashes are gone.
    This is something serious.

 3. Figure 10-4 appears as a black square instead of two boxes
    connected with two arrows.  Was has happened here?  My pnmtopng
    identifies as 

      pnmtopng: Version: Netpbm 1 March 1994
      pnmtopng: Compiled Sat Aug 19 13:53:38 EST 1995 by user "root"
      pnmtopng: BSD defined
      pnmtopng: PBMPLUS_RAWBITS defined
      pnmtopng: RGB_DB="/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/rgb"
      pnmtopng: LIBTIFF defined

    [This is weird anyway -- there was no PNG format defined in 1994.]

    It seems that we have to add a remark to which version of netpbm
    is needed...

 4. Figure 10-6 is an example where the top is cropped too much.

 5. At the begin of section 14 there is a formatting problem:
    The code

      The syntax is
      \fBdefine\fP \fIname\fP \fB{\fP \fIreplacement text \fB}\fP

    is translated to 

      <p>The syntax is</p>
      <b>     define</b> <i>name</i> <b>{</b> <i>replacement text</i> <b>}

    At least with my browser (Netscape 4.73 on Linux), everything is
    bold, and nothing is in italics.  What results do you get?  Do
    font changes really work in <pre> ... </pre>?

 6. At the beginning of section 15.1 there is another serious error:
    The string

        copy filename




    The font `CW' is handled incorrectly (similary to 5.).

  7. Below figure 16-1, the .DS/.DE environment isn't handled
     correctly.  Again, there is an incorrect <pre> ... </pre>,
     possibly paired with an incorrect recognition of `\' at the end
     of line.

  8. At the beginning of section 18, `\e' isn't printed at all.
     Perhaps related to 2.?

  9. A fundamental question: Shall grohtml set the `t' or `n' flag?
     For example, the macro \*(tx defined in as

       .ie t .ds tx T\h'-.1667m'\v'.224m'E\v'-.224m'\h'-.125m'X
       .el .ds tx TeX

     gives `TEX' if processed with grohtml, but without lowering the
     `E' character, which is bad...

Besides this, the results looks really nice!


reply via email to

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