Re: man Macro Package and pdfmark

[Werner LEMBERG]

> And at this point, the man(7) language is better maintained and
> appears to have more of a future than texinfo, which has been a lame
> duck now for at least half a decade, probably longer:
> 

Uh, oh, no idea why you bash texinfo from time to time.  Currently, it
receives more active development than groff – or man(7); have a look
at

  http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/texinfo.git

Almost all GNU programs still provide its documentation in the texinfo
format; I don't see that this will change in the near future.

With some care the results can be quite nice.  For example, see the
LilyPond notation reference at

  http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf

And here's the HTML output, generated from exactly the same texinfo
source files:[1]

  http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/index.html


>   https://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg08172.html

This AsciiDoc thing never happened – maybe it gets some momentum right
now, see

  
https://www.heise.de/developer/meldung/Arbeitsgruppe-zur-Auszeichnungssprache-AsciiDoc-gestartet-4660580.html


    Werner


[1] LilyPond uses a heavily modified, ancient version of the texi2html
    script, not compatible with the one that is part of current
    texinfo versions.  We lack the manpower to update it...  But it
    still does its job, and the HTML output looks quite nice, too.