Re: [Groff] groff documentation

[Larry Kollar]

Larry McVoy wrote:

> > > I've always found it weird that groff docs aren't in roff, seems a
> > > bit lame.
> >
> > Basically I agree, but texinfo has some useful capabilities not
> > available with groff.
>
> Grumble.  Double grumble.  I really really want groff to documented with
> groff.

A grumble repeated down through the ages (well, at least since
I've been reading this list) by many people....

> What is it that you need out of
> texinfo and why is that not being added to groff?  BitMover isn't a
> wealthy company but if some donations would help I'd at the very least
> consider it.

I would guess that what's missing is built-in TOC and xref processing.
My opinion is that's not all that important because the problem can be
solved using external processing (see mmroff(1) for one solution).
Beyond that, frankly, I'm not sure what texinfo offers besides the FSF's
blessing.

IMO, another need is to shake the customization-related bugs out of the
mm package and start using it. I started poking at m.tmac a while back
but first hit a brick wall then UTP-related stuff started backing up.

Putting a tech writer on your documentation project would help a lot.
There are far too many unemployed tech writers out there today,
although I don't know how many of them are comfortable with *roff.

--
Larry Kollar   k  o  l  l  a  r  @  a  l  l  t  e  l  .  n  e  t
There's a fine line between a Christmas wreath and a bunch of dead
clippings tied in a circle. I think it's the red bow that makes the 
difference.
  -- Larry the Cucumber