[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Groff] address@hidden: Re: Back to the future]

From: Keith Marshall
Subject: Re: [Groff] address@hidden: Re: Back to the future]
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 09:30:05 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0

On 07/03/14 08:27, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Peter Schaffter <address@hidden>:
>> As for groff itself, and good typography, I care about them
>> passionately, for reasons it would take a book to explain.  We're
>> all the same, I think.  Together--list subscribers and those
>> involved in active development--let's show a certain semantic nut
>> he's wrong about the future of the printed page. :)
> That makes a good rallying cry, but...
> ...I actually do care about good typography. I just don't find it very
> relevant to the technical-documentation inadequacies I want to address.

That's fine, but ...

> Here's a f'rinstance.
> I would dearly love to own a printed edition of Sir Richard Francis 
> Burton's translation of the Arabian Nights with its major defect - 
> absence of any paragraphing - fixed.
> And on *that*, by Goddess, I'd value fine typography.  And acid-free
> archival paper.  And a leather binding. The book as craft object and
> sensual experience.

with this ...

> There's still a place for that; it just doesn't happen to be 
> anywhere near man pages.

you continue to convey an impression, real or imagined, that you believe
groff's /raison de ĂȘtre/ to be man page production, which, of course, is
a world apart from reality -- including the reality of your typographic
instance above.


reply via email to

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