[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Groff] Mission statement, second draft

From: Ralph Corderoy
Subject: Re: [Groff] Mission statement, second draft
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:06:29 +0000

Hi Steve,

> > * Strange, irregular, archaic-seeming markup design compared to XML
> > or even TeX.  Brian Kernignan called it "rebarbative" in *1979*.
> Groff is a filter. The input language, the markup, etc., is entirely
> arbitary.

I read _The TeXbook_ and returned to troff.  The input language of troff
is superior for mark-up that doesn't clutter the prose, e.g. often small
and out of the way at the left of a line, and macro sets have tended to
follow this.  XML suffers terribly from noise, not intended for human
entry, as I think you said elsewhere.  asciidoc and friends are too
simplified, OK for a github README but not typesetting.

Even though we're freed from two-letter everythings by modern troff, for
common requests, a `.p' is all that's needed for the reader.  (mom is
noticeable exception to the "quiet" command syntax, though I recall
Peter saying he maps all the SHOUTING onto lowercase for his personal

Cheers, Ralph.

reply via email to

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