[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: <OK> [Groff] Simplifying groff documentation
From: |
Michael(tm) Smith |
Subject: |
Re: <OK> [Groff] Simplifying groff documentation |
Date: |
Thu, 4 Jan 2007 04:30:42 +0900 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
"Eric S. Raymond" <address@hidden>, 2006-12-24 13:01 -0500:
> Gunnar Ritter <address@hidden>:
> > But I think the most important question for troff people is,
> > where is a complete, high-quality converter for
> >
> > +-------------+/ +===========+
> > | XML-DocBook |=======>| troff | ?
> > +-------------+\ +===========+
> >
> > With <?troff .request?> processing instructions, this makes
> > it possible to retain all the typographical aspects we like.
> >
> > XSL-FO to troff is also worth consideration.
>
> XSL-FO to troff would be far more appropriate. XSL and troff are at about
> the same level; thus, you wouldn't have to wire in all the policy/styling
> decisions you would in a DocBook->troff renderer.
Exactly. There are lots of XML vocabularies other than DocBook --
at least one of them that's very widely used -- TEI -- and for
which there are open-source stylesheets for generating XSL-FO
output (the TEI project has some very good stylesheets). So XSL-FO
is the best choice for a mechanism for generating portable
presentation output from presentation-neutral XML markup
vocabularies like DocBook and TEI.
All we need are some better free-sofware XSL-FO engines.
Steve Cheng announced at one time that he was working on an XSL-FO
to roff engine. I don't know how far he managed to get.
--Mike
--
Michael(tm) Smith
http://www.w3.org/People/Smith/
Re: <OK> [Groff] Simplifying groff documentation, Michael(tm) Smith, 2007/01/03