> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Bernd Warken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > `doclifter' should be fixed to handle this correctly. I cannot > > detect any necessity for a "safe" list. I will not fall back to the > > old scheme of 2 letter variable names. > > I opened this discussion because, for just eight pages out of over 13,000, > adding the additional complexity to handle these additional features > seems unwarranted.
That's not the fault of groff, but you are not willing to accept the standard. > Gunnar Ritter then pointed out that these features break other programs > besides doclifter. XMan, Rosetta, TkMan -- all programs other than > groff's own rendering engine blow higher than up on this hackery. Even > troff classic breaks. `groff' is the standard; it is available on all operating systems and it is free. So there should not be a problem to use it. If some programmers want to cook their own soups they are forced to take over the standard. > I alreadty support quite a few groff extensions in my code. Improving > doclifter the rest of the way to handle your macros is something I > could be persuaded to do if that were sufficient to solve the problems > with the macros. > > Unfortunately, it is not. What you are really doing with them is > making your man sources un-renderable by *anything* but groff. > > That is the real bug here, and that's what needs to be fixed. It's not a bug, it's part of the standard. `grohtml' is able to transform all man pages indluding your enemies to a beautiful html output. So this should also be possible for XML. How about integrating `doclifter' into `groff' as generater for `docbook' output? `groff -Tdocbook' would be very nice. If you do not want to integrate the `groff' standard you have to rename your program to `classicaldoclifter'. Bernd Warken _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
