Re: [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation

[Gunnar Ritter]

"Eric S. Raymond" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Gunnar Ritter <address@hidden>:
> > Real *roff is hardly the problem since it has supported the
> > two-character requests (except .do) for more than thirty years
> > now. The issues are with scripts that convert manual pages or
> > build indexes for them or whatever. I would say a program that
> > claims to read manual pages is broken enough to be irrelevant
> > if it cannot at least handle
> > 
> >   .br .fi .nf .sp .ig .in .ti
>
> Doclifter might fail that test.  It ignores .in and .ti, because
> I don't know any way to extract structural information from them.

I have often used .in (and seen it used) in a context like
<informalexample>. Looking at a few pages, it seems that
others have used .ti similarly.

        Gunnar