[Groff] What is the current state of Unicode support in Groff?

[Mike Bianchi]

While verifying Kernighan's Lemma with him, Brian mentioned:

        I used groff about 3-4 years ago for a new book (advt below, in case I
        haven't already spammed you).  It all worked pretty well, though there
        were a lot of bandaids to handle indexing, contents, PDF, etc.  I'm in
        the early stages of a new one at this point (no details yet, since my
        co-author has to clear it) and we're thinking about what to use.
        
        One big problem with groff is that it doesn't really do Unicode
        smoothly, though I think this is more a Postscript problem.  If I
        could resolve that, I would likely use groff again.  Troff is no walk
        in the park, but the alternatives are all worse.
        
        Any thoughts on that?
        Would be nice if it worked smoothly.
        If you look carefully at the tiny amount of Unicode in
        "D is for Digital", you can see that I had trouble.

        [Advertisement] Check out "D is for Digital: What a well-informed
        person ought to know about computers and communications", ...

        [And a second advertisement] As an experiment, I have also published a
        Kindle book "Hello, World!  Opinion columns from the Daily
        Princetonian", ...

I've not kept up with the current Unicode state of groff.
Any enlightenment would be appreciated.

Brian is cc'ed to this email, so "Replay All".

-- 
 Mike Bianchi
 Foveal Systems

 973 822-2085

 address@hidden
 http://www.AutoAuditorium.com
 http://www.FovealMounts.com