Re: [Groff] more html macros needed

[Jon Snader]

On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 09:07:51AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> 
> I fully agree -- in my opinion, we have to experiment a lot with www
> macros, rewriting them in a systematical way later.  In general,
> providing macros of the form .xxx and .xxx-end similar to LaTeX's
> \begin{xxx} ... \end{xxx} is probably good for groff also.
> 

Let me offer a dissenting opinion.  To my mind, and to that of many
others, one of the chief advantages of [gt]roff over TeX and LaTeX is
that it is much less wordy.  I don't believe that we should be trying
to emulate the LaTeX syntax.  Rather we should try, when possible, to
follow the original paradigm of having a request remain active until
the next paragraph (e.g. until the next, possibly implicit, .RT in the
ms macros).

As I said before, if you want LaTeX (or its syntax) you know where to
find it.

Jon Snader

P.S.  I'm making a general statement here, not one about the really
tremendous work being done with the HTML extensions.  I *do* value
those efforts and am grateful for them.  I am merely offering one 
user's perspective on how the language itself should evolve.