Some comments on groff and all the requests regarding document formats, and compatibility. One of the things I like about roff, is that it is focused on a pretty unique area of use: print manuals and documents. The introduction of pdfroff has long been needed, but I think that only shows my point. SGML, including its html and XML children, is a distinct markup language from roff. Though there is an interest in document conversion to other types of markup, and though roff has evolved from runoff, to nroff, to troff, to ditroff, there is a distinct pattern of use and evolution. Applications have a tendency to bloat (dare I mention Emacs for fear of being strung up?) as features are desired and requested, and I think this can become a negative thing.
groff is now a major component in a majority (I would think) of UNIX systems, and UNIX variants. It is used for online manuals, and print manuals; it is used for writing documentation, memos, letters, and so on. However, I think that using groff to write your webpage, or as a front end for various document formats, is probably misdirected. DocBook, word processors, LaTeX (in some cases), and so on are much better suited to these various tasks. Though I'm not against groff evolving with the computer industry, I do think it needs to maintain its focus in the UNIX tradition of collections of various tools for various jobs, while fitting into its own niche in the roff family as GNU roff. _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
