[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] UTP markup

From: Jon Snader
Subject: Re: [Groff] UTP markup
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 07:33:16 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.25i

On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 03:52:37PM -0700, Meg McRoberts wrote:
> Very cool!  So what is the plan?  Are you going to include formatted
> text with the groff distributions, use the groff HTML-generation
> to publish it on the web, or something else?  Is the goal to preserve
> the classic as closely as possible or to use it as a basis for a
> book about groff that is written for our time?

It's still a little vague.  Right now we're just trying to make the
book available to groff users as a resource.  The idea, as I understand
it, is to first make a more or less verbatim copy of the original, and
then as a follow up project update it for groff and friends.
> I haven't been able to find these on my system -- I'm running
> Caldera OpenLinux, and I have the source files but don't seem
> to have built text.  For example, I did "locate meintro" and found
> the file in my groff-current directory and one in the
> /usr/share/doc/packages/groff-1.16.1 directory.  I issued a make
> in that directory and bombed out fast.

Try typing ``type groff'' from the bash shell.  If it gives you a path,
then you already have groff installed.  If not, I'm sure you can find
the binaries on the Caldera Website.  I use FreeBSD as my main machine,
and SuSE as my Linux, so I'm not familiar with the Caldera set up.
Maybe a Caldera user can speak up and tell you where to find it.

> This comes back to my previous question of the purpose here.  If
> you really want to replicate the original for historical purposes,
> I suppose one could let this stand and add a footnote about the
> current situation.  But I'm hoping that the ultimate goal here is
> to create a good groff document for our times.

We're trying to create a resource, not a shrine, so I, for one,
wouldn't insist on keeping the reference as is.  I wouldn't object
to removing it altogether.  Really, I don't think it much matters
for the first go around.  When and if we update the book, then we
would want to get it right.  Of course, all that's only my opinion.
Others may differ and who knows what sort of loony legal requirements
there are.

> I'd be happy to work on that, although we should remember the
> immortal quote:."A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small
> minds, enamored by politicians, philosophers, and divines.  With
> consistency a great mind has simply nothing to do."  ;-)

Perhaps, but I've always been a little suspicious of Emerson on this
one.  One can just as easily make the case that inconsistency is just
a sign of intellectual laziness.  In any event, there's no need to
make heavy going of all of this.  The idea is just to make the book look
like a book, and not like 20 separate essays typeset by 20 separate
authors according to their own taste.

Jon Snader

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]