[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Groff] Future direction of groff

From: hohe72
Subject: Re: [Groff] Future direction of groff
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:01:41 +0100

Tadziu Hoffmann <address@hidden> wrote (Fri, 7 Feb 2014
00:29:11 +0100):
> >> If the user set up the page margins incorrectly, you can hardly
> >> blame the software for that...
> >
> > cannot see any border setups at
> You set it in the style sheet?  Or on the command line?
> A major criterion was separation of content and presentation,
> and page size (and borders) is clearly a presentational issue.

I see.

Hm, it isn't seperated, it is hidden. And it is not ok, to force the
user to go deep down the docbook-xsl-config or blame him. And finally
asciidoc developers themself doesn't get ride of it. Hencefore, aiming
at my first response, asciidoc is not a simple easy-to-use replacement
for groff, generally.

On the other hand, I don't know asciidoc+docbook. Being not willing to
install whole 1GB texlive yet, that will not improve. Maybe there are a
lot of advantages using all that xsl configs for article/ book/ foo/
bar predefined use cases as deployed in Latex, docbook and the like.
Once, I felt more comfortable with the small step improvements done by
using plain groff, to produce pdf printouts of any kind: calendar,
journal, bachelor thesis, business letters, documentation, slides, all.
Limited by knowledge, not software, as it should be.

You know, time I spend to understand/ tweak all that we-think-for-you
ready-made software, to become skilled in everything, I might not spend
to help one or another Open Source project. So I think it's ok to have
an harsh users point of view. I'm anyway not polite. But you can be sure
that I really enjoy things that do well.


reply via email to

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