Re: [Groff] man pages for macro packages

[Larry Kollar]

Werner LEMBERG wrote:

> > Hm. In days of old, when *roff'ers were bold, all the macro packages
> > started with 'm'. Thus we had man(7), ms(7), etc. Why not stick with
> > what was once established practice ...?

> Ugly, ugly.  As you certainly know, both `man' and `ms' are command
> line tricks; in reality, the macro files have been called `tmac.an'
> and `tmac.s' in old UNIX days.  Bernd was right in pointing out that
> `mwww.tmac' is a bad idea.

Well, sure. But the fact remains... whether its file was named tmac.s or
tmac.ms or ms.tmac, it has always[1] been referred to as "the -ms macro
package" or just "-ms macros." Manpages have a FILES subsection, where
we can point out the actual path to the macro file if needed.

My point was (and is) that there's an established convention already.
I see *your* point, though, w.r.t. the -mwww macros. Here we have a
good old culture clash... do we accommodate the old folks like me
(I've been using variants of troff since before the Linux 2.4 kernel
maintainer was born! agh do I feel old tonight) and call it -mwww, or 
avoid confusing non-experts and just call it www?

Sometimes, it's OK to break convention. This looks to me like a good
example of one of those times....

        Larry

[1] For reasonable (two-decade) values of "always."