D. E. Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> P.S. I know that Eric is shooting for something more dynamic, but
> does this have to be made anymore complicated than a better export
> facility for groff (improvements or replace for grohtml that is
> both standardized for HTML, and perhaps has an XSLT function for a
> simplified XHTML or XML doc)?
grohtml produces crappy HTML because groff sees nothing but
presentation level. I've explained this general problem at least
twice now.
> It seems that if DocBook wants to do
> something with man pages, why don't they provide an import function?
Because DocBook isn't a program, it's a markup format. In effect,
doclifter *is* its "import function" for man pages. The DocBook
maintainers point to doclifter from their website.
> There's enough problems in the symantic web world that a dynamic
> system along Eric's thinking seems premature or superfluous,
Dynamic? What's dynamic about it? Feed man markup in one end of a
pipeline, get high-quality HTML out the other.
Also, the "semantic web" isn't involved yet. The only ontology
in play is DocBook's quite well-established DTD.
> If online documentation
> is what is intended, I'd rather write those directly in HTML, or
> XHTML, or some other XML schema, and avoid roff, or if originally
> written in roff, converted to HTML for online reference.
Nothing in my scheme stops you from doing that.
> Am I completely missing the point, and being ignorant?
Um, well, yes.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
