Re: [Groff] Status of the portability work, and plans for the future

[Gunnar Ritter]

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

> > Maybe. But still the tools should not complain if a troff
> > expert has decided that something is safe.
>
> And how are they going to do that?  Mental telepathy? :-)

As I wrote in the text following, by separating a "lint"
(or "-Wall") mode and silent regular use.

> That seems a reasonable compromise -- dead-simple rules with some
> notice that experts can break them if they know what they're doing.
> I'll add such language when I draft the portability guide.  Do prod me
> if I let this slip.

Fine, then we agree on this too.

> > > especially
> > > since I think the future belongs to browsers, where you can't get
> > > precise visual control anyway without heroic measures that are a
> > > bad idea for other reasons.
> > 
> > This is too simplistic. While it is clearly desirable to
> > have manual pages that can be displayed in browsers, it
> > is a safe bet that many experienced users will continue
> > to view them on a terminal.
>
> And that is what, <1% of our potential userbase?

>50% of those users that actually develop software, write
useful bug reports, maintain the documentation, . . . ?

> Sorry, but speaking
> as one of those "experienced users" (an old Unix hand since 1982), I
> think your vision is too narrow and geeky and parochial here.  If the
> price of a decent hypertexted documentation system is as low as
> causing minor inconvenience to a handful of crusty old Unix grognards
> like us, it is long past time to pay it.

I would rather risk to lose 100 non-contributors than one
contributor. But since we are just developing an approach
that satisfies both camps, I do not really understand what
point you are trying to make here?

        Gunnar