Re: [Groff] Eric Raymond on groff and TeX

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> Yes.  However, grohtml would be able to do different things, in a
>> different way, and with proper markup the results could be
>> excellent also.  Sigh.
> 
> It's interesting you say that, Werner, because I think grohtml is
> broken by design, for the simple reason that HTML in no way
> resembles a printer.

Today, the tty output device isn't a printer either...

> Because troff affords the user finer control -- dot-addressable
> control -- over the (intended) output, any conversion to HTML is
> subject to gross loss of fidelity.  Aren't the advantages of ditroff
> completely lost?

The idea is that macro packages like ms contain some helper macros to
guide grohtml so that (most of) the high-level structure remains
intact.  On the other hand, grohtml sees the output of all groff
macros, including the preprocessors.  Where necessary, images are
created.


    Werner