[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Groff] Bugs in grohtml

From: Peter Schaffter
Subject: Re: [Groff] Bugs in grohtml
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 15:26:42 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.0.1i

On Thu, May 29, 2003, Gaius Mulley wrote:
> yes it should be possible to insert grohtml tags (or automatically
> invoke equivalent -Thtml macros) into the mom macro set so that basic
> html generation can be achieved.

Mom's approach to basic doc processing is already similar to html.
The key word is "basic."  Titles, heads, subheads, paragraph heads,
paragraph text.  Line for line quotes.  Blockquotes (citations).
Provided that the idea would be to have grohtml generate readable
(i.e. non-garbled, even if not particularly spiffy) html, getting
mom and grohtml working together is a fine idea.  Anyone got the
time to explore it? :)

> I'll wear my asbestos jacket and dare to ask whether the excellent
> documentation for mom is likely to appear in info format?  Or how
> difficult would it be to translate it into info?

Perfectly reasonable question.  No flameproofing required.  Myself,
the only thing I wonder about is: how necessary or useful would it
be?  If the docs are already browseable and hyper-linked in html,
is there a need to have them browseable and linked in info as well?
I can't see a clear advantage, other than consistency with groff's
other info docs.  On top of which, between om.tmac and all the
documentation, mom already adds over 900K to the whole groff
package.  Is it really a good idea to increase that?

Plus, although as a Debian user I'm used to using info, the fact
is my knowledge of TeX and texinfo is zilch.  I haven't a clue how
difficult translating html to info would be.

Peter Schaffter

Author of _The Schumann Proof_, appearing fall, 2004
(pub. RendezVous Press, Canada)

reply via email to

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