[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] pdfroff broken?
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] pdfroff broken? |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:09:29 +0100 (CET) |
> > grops:<standard input>:594: lines in X exec command must not be
>
> [...] This isn't the cause of the overlong \X lines; the actual
> cause is that the .pdfmark macro emits the entire pdfmark code for
> each link in a single \X line, and that obscenely long URL exposes a
> limitation of this design.
Well, the limitation is hmm, old. It serves only to enforce a
document structure which is fully compliant to the DSC. I doubt that
there are still many printers which refuse PS files with lines longer
than 255 characters...
As a first measure I've replaced the errors in grops with warnings so
that overlong lines actually get included into the output.
> I guess the solution will be to adapt the .pdfmark implementation,
> such that it distributes its output over multiple \X lines.
Hopefully, you get something working. On the other hand, it no longer
causes severe problems.
> Hmm. I don't think it's possible to completely suppress execution
> of all commands; the intermediate files would at least need to be
> compiled, as they are used to control the multipass processing
> sequence.
If it makes too much trouble please simply forget it...
Werner
- Re: [Groff] pdfroff broken?, (continued)
- Re: [Groff] pdfroff broken?, Larry Kollar, 2006/03/13
- Re: [Groff] pdfroff broken?, Keith MARSHALL, 2006/03/14
- Re: [Groff] pdfroff broken?, Larry Kollar, 2006/03/14
- Re: [Groff] pdfroff broken?, Keith MARSHALL, 2006/03/14
- Re: [Groff] pdfroff broken?, Keith Marshall, 2006/03/15
Re: [Groff] pdfroff broken?, Werner LEMBERG, 2006/03/04