[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Groff] Groff to pdf/Windows

From: Keith Marshall
Subject: Re: [Groff] Groff to pdf/Windows
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 20:39:37 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0

On 06/03/14 20:08, Deri James wrote:
> On Thu 06 Mar 2014 18:08:10 Keith Marshall wrote:
>> So, you're assuming that just one preliminary pass is sufficient to
>> resolve the cross references?  That may not be so, and pdfroff is not so
>> naive; it performs at least two such passes, and then as many more as
>> may be necessary, until two consecutive passes generate identical
>> reference dictionaries, (or until it becomes clear that no ultimately
>> stable layout is achievable).
> It's a bit simpler for me because part of the logic is in the output driver 
> (gropdf). All I need are the tag names and the descriptive text associated 
> with them. The positioning of hot spots is done with these calls to gropdf:-
> \X’pdf: markstart /ANN definition’
> and
> \X’pdf: markend’
> So if the hotspot "moves" due to previously unfound references which are 
> expanded on the second run, the markers also move. (There are also a 
> pair of other commands - \X’pdf: marksuspend’ and \X’pdf: markrestart’ 
> which are intended to be used in page trap macros to prevent 
> headings/footings being included in the hot spotting when the hotspot 
> crosses a page boundary).
> I had it much easier than you having to do the hotspot location 
> calculations in a groff macro.

Okay, but what if the descriptive text within the hot spot includes a
page number reference to the link target, and that target moves across a
page boundary during pass two?

>> On 06/03/14 16:21, Deri James wrote:
>>> Keith, is there any chance I could add something along these lines to
>>> pdfroff if the -T pdf switch is passed to pdfroff?
>> Sure.  You have the source, to modify as you see fit, (or, are you
>> asking me to help you with that?)
> No, I'm happy to suggest a patch, it's just that your scripting 
> style/knowledge is far superior so I would welcome the opurtunity to
> send it to you for perusal first.

I'm happy enough to vet any patch you care to submit.  My principal
concern would be the reconciliation of our differing algorithms for
reference dictionary compilation, but I'm sure that will not be


reply via email to

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