Re: [Groff] Bugs in grohtml

[Werner LEMBERG]

> > I'll wear my asbestos jacket and dare to ask whether the excellent
> > documentation for mom is likely to appear in info format?  Or how
> > difficult would it be to translate it into info?
> 
> Perfectly reasonable question.  No flameproofing required.  Myself,
> the only thing I wonder about is: how necessary or useful would it
> be?

I don't recommend changing the full documentation into texinfo.
Anyway, having a reference of all macros would be nice :-) But it
isn't urgent IMHO.

> If the docs are already browseable and hyper-linked in html, is
> there a need to have them browseable and linked in info as well?  I
> can't see a clear advantage, other than consistency with groff's
> other info docs.

Indexing.

> On top of which, between om.tmac and all the documentation, mom
> already adds over 900K to the whole groff package.  Is it really a
> good idea to increase that?

This is no problem at all.

> Plus, although as a Debian user I'm used to using info, the fact is
> my knowledge of TeX and texinfo is zilch.  I haven't a clue how
> difficult translating html to info would be.

Good question.  The easiest approach is probably to create a
(structured) plain text document to which texinfo commands are added
manually.


    Werner