Re: [Groff] Replacing groff with troff?

[Meg McRoberts]

I loved Clarke's history/rant posting, BTW...

The other big output issue I know about is the lack of support for UTF-8.
I've written some man pages for Trend that I can build fine but when I
send the source to the R&D people in Taiwan and Nanjing, they have
trouble running them because all their systems are set to UTF-8.  At
least I think that is the problem -- I'm not adept at macros or character
sets.

I still think BSD should stick with groff...  It seems silly to be maintaining
two sets of what is essentially the same tool, especially one that is
increasingly seen as an esoteric tool beloved by codgers who don't 
appreciate the blessed elegance of WYSIWYG...  And yes, I consider
myself to be one of those codgers and PROUD OF IT!  ;-)

meg

--- On Tue, 6/1/10, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:

From: Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Groff] Replacing groff with troff?
To: address@hidden
Cc: address@hidden
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 9:49 PM


>> produces uncertain output
> 
> At this point, I'm convinced that the author has never used groff.

He probably means HTML output, and indeed, groff shows a lot of
weaknesses for this output device since nobody takes care to make mdoc
work well for hypertext.  Unfortunately, I'm really swamped with work
and have to share my spare time with a lot of other projects and some
private life.

On the other hand, there is already Eric's `doclifter' stuff which, as
far as I know, does a good job.  IMHO it would make more sense to work
on this tool than to write something new (since Eric apparently has no
time or interest currently to work on doclifter).

  http://catb.org/~esr/doclifter/


    Werner