[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why.
From: |
Peter Schaffter |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why. |
Date: |
Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:04:31 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004, Klaus Robert Suetterlin wrote:
> I tried to identify the macro package that would fill my needs.
> These are mainly cross references, customisable headers and footers,
> bibliographic references (which can be done by use of external
> tools) and two column formatting. Of mm, ms and mom, there seems to
> be only mm that has cross references. ms seems to be quite far
> on the do it Yourself side of groff macros -- I'm not a typesetter
> or printer or macro-hacker and don't want to invent the wheel of
> page layout again, so I fear ms is not my way to go.
If it weren't for the cross reference requirement, mom would be
a good choice. The tools for customising everything--including
headers and footers--are extensive, without requiring that you be a
typesetter or a macro-hacker. And if you do decide that you want
to do some heavy-duty typesetting, or start playing around with
macros, mom makes the transition pretty easy.
However, no cross-reference facilities. I've given the matter some
thought, but have yet to come up with a way of implementing them in
mom. Posterior references aren't too much of a problem. But
anterior references have me baffled. Even with a "two-pass"
implementation (which I inherently dislike), there's always the
possibility that the addition of a page number to a tagged
reference will disrupt the formatting, resulting in a reference
that's off by one page. And what's the good of automatic
cross-referencing if it isn't 100% reliable?
--
Peter Schaffter
Author of _The Schumann Proof_ (RendezVous Press, Canada)
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., (continued)
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Pete Phillips, 2004/09/23
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Keith Marshall, 2004/09/23
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/24
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Keith Marshall, 2004/09/26
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/26
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/27
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/27
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/27
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why.,
Peter Schaffter <=
Re: <OK> [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., M Bianchi, 2004/09/24
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Tadziu Hoffmann, 2004/09/28
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Larry Kollar, 2004/09/23
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Keith MARSHALL, 2004/09/24