Larry Kollar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gunnar Ritter wrote:
>
> >> D.E. Evans asked about an improved grohtml, or even a replacement.
> >> Perhaps grohtml can be improved.
> >
> > grohtml is broken by concept. It is thus impossible that
> > it will ever reach a satisfying state.
>
> This is a little off the subject, but I disagree. I'm already using
> grohtml to generate useful HTML. True, you can't do it with bog-
> standard macros,
Which means that it is far away from an ordinary troff
postprocessor which simply handles anything it gets, at
least as far as text is concerned.
> but using -mwww (which I know Heirloom
> doesn't support) and some customization, helps a lot.
I do not doubt that one can create troff input which is
convertible to HTML, but this still helps nothing for the
general case.
> But even if you aren't interested in generating (or converting to)
> HTML, whether markup is structured or presentational basically
> depends on what you call it. :-)
No. A .rt, for example, is always presentational.
Gunnar
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
