Re: [Groff] Re: grohtml patches

[Werner LEMBERG]

> > I don't think it is a good idea to add the `image_generator'
> > keyword to libgroff instead to the grohtml driver.  Which other
> > driver needs `image_generator'?  It seems best to me to move that
> > code to grohtml.
> 
> ok, I'm not sure this is as easy as clean as it sounds. Maybe it
> would require quite a few support methods which effectively
> duplicate libgroff ?

Please explain.


    Werner