Re: [Groff] troff(1) and info

[Werner LEMBERG]

> > > Having groff's documentation solely in groff would be an
> > > excellent showcase of its abilities too.
> > 
> > better yet, hold it in DocBook and have it transformable into
> > groff -- or whatever format you could want.
> 
> But it would remove one of the advantages, that of having a large,
> idiomatic, not mechanically produced, work of groff included in the
> distribution.

pic.ms is a quite large document, isn't it?
 
> Also, I'd guess it would be easier to write examples of groff and
> the matching output in groff.

I think it would be more effective to invest time into a modern macro
package (similar to LaTeX 2e) which is something really needed IMHO.

BTW, state of the art is the mdoc macro package and its documentation,
groff_mdoc.man.


    Werner