[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files
From: |
Keith Marshall |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files |
Date: |
Sat, 22 Jul 2017 21:47:50 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 |
On 22/07/17 21:17, Ted Harding wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-07-22 at 15:32 -0400, Mike Bianchi wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 06:19:29PM +0100, Keith Marshall wrote:
>>> On 22/07/17 15:06, John Gardner wrote:
>>>> ... Can I semi-seriously implore the world to only use UTF-8, and
>>>> pretend other encodings don't exist?
>>>
>>> Not really going to happen, for as long as MS-Windows remains the
>>> dominant OS for personal computer platforms.
>>
>> I have documents, nroff, troff and others (plus sh/ksh/awk/sed/...
>> scripts), dating back to the mid-1970s. Many of those *roff
>> documents still format correctly.
>>
>> The thing I _like_ about the *nix OSs is they don't demand I
>> upconvert just because a "better way" comes along.
>>
>> Remember when the "modern" way to archive was to put everything
>> onto microfiche?
>
> I completely agree with Mike!
So do I, but my original point is completely orthogonal. Sure, for
those of us who are sufficiently enlightened to favour *nix platforms
over MS-Windows, we have that luxury; unfortunately, the majority of
computer user's today swallow the Microsoft hype, so lack any such
enlightenment.
> Of course it would be a good thing to *extend* groff's capabilities
> so that it can cope (optionally) with recent developments, but in my
> view it *must* keep its original capabilities, and those that have
> evolved since (say) the 1980s (which is where many of my own troff
> source files date back to).
The very reason that I put significant effort into making groff run
reliably on Windows was because, in the face of corporate stupidity
forcing me dowm the MS-Windows path, I needed to maintain and update
documentation for a legacy process control system, which I needed to
keep operational up until around 2010. Groff was a much better fit
for that requirement than would have been MS-Word -- management's
preference, but ultimately, entirely unsuitable.
The simple reality is that, if we wish to preserve groff's current
utility on MS-Windows, insistence on UTF-8 only as an input encoding
is not a viable option.
--
Regards,
Keith.
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, (continued)
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, Dale Snell, 2017/07/23
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, E. Hoffmann, 2017/07/25
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, hohe72, 2017/07/24
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, Steffen Nurpmeso, 2017/07/21
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, Ingo Schwarze, 2017/07/22
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, John Gardner, 2017/07/22
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, Keith Marshall, 2017/07/22
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, John Gardner, 2017/07/22
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, Mike Bianchi, 2017/07/22
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, Ted Harding, 2017/07/22
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files,
Keith Marshall <=
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/07/23
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, Keith Marshall, 2017/07/23
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/07/23
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, Ingo Schwarze, 2017/07/23
- Re: [Groff] mom : unicode in .INCLUDE'd files, Steffen Nurpmeso, 2017/07/22