Re: [Groff] groff documentation

[Werner LEMBERG]

> > 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.

Exactly.  Additionally, it is the `official' GNU documentation
utility.  A lot of packages are documented in texinfo, and the `info'
interface provides easy access with a uniform interface.

> 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.

Well, having a uniform documentation format for many packages is
something which I consider as valuable.  For example, I prefer
documentation of LaTeX in texinfo format also, mainly for looking up
keywords, environments, etc.

What we need are additional tutorials how to actually use groff.
pic.ms is a very good example; the same should be written for other
macro packages also.


    Werner